Source Book for Creative Problem-solving: A Fifty Year Digest of Proven Innovation Processes 093022292X, 9780930222925

Citation preview

t

ms. Ml)

irn i

^ IANA STATE UNIVERSITY EVANSVILLE CAMPUS

PRESENTED BY ROBERT B SLADE INLAND CONTAINER CORP

DATE DUE

J97/ / ////

/ /??/ //

/9?3 / ms~

_

Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2019 with funding from Kahle/Austin Foundation

https://archive.org/details/isbn_0006210007

A Source Book for

CREATIVE THINKING

A Source Book for

CREATIVE THINKING EDITED BY

SIDNEY J. PARNES University of Buffalo HAROLD F. HARDING The Ohio State University

THE LIBRARY INDIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

Charles Scribner's Sons

New York

042138

Copyright © 1962 Charles Scribner’s Sons. This book published simultaneously in the United States of America and in Canada— Copyright under the Berne Convention All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form without the permission of Charles Scribner’s Sons. E-9.66[V] Printed in the United States of America Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 62-10007

PREFACE

“knowledge is of two kinds. We know a subject ourselves, or we know where we can find information upon it.” This observation of Samuel Johnson’s is especially fitting in a day of specialization and myriad sources of information. Our purpose in this book is to provide good guides and suggestions for those who want to know more about how we think creatively and where to find more information. There are many books and articles about critical thinking and “thinking straight,” but until recent years few scholars have seriously investigated creative thinking. Our colleges and universities for the most part have neglected the subject. Only here and there have individual professors recognized the values of originality and creativity in their own courses. We hope that this collection of twenty-nine articles and addresses, as well as over seventy-five research summaries, will give the general reader and teachers at all levels both orientation and a new sense of direction. We urge educators to recognize creative thinking as at least equal in importance to any other subject. Indeed, it should be the means of breathing new life into all others. Our constant aim has been to provide readings that will tell what one must know and what one should know to claim a knowledge of the field. Countless articles in the “nice to know” area could find no place in this volume. Obviously many titles may be relevant to the study of creativity. But we have had to exclude all but those that are most highly relevant. Some of the important but more peripheral topics are mentioned in the texts and in the footnotes. Again, scores of articles were omitted because more recent ones covering essentially the same material were available. In spite of the high degree of selectivity in choosing articles, there are bound to be repetitions of concepts in a volume of this kind. (No editorial changes were made in the content of the various authors’ papers.) And obviously contradictions occur in the expressions of certain

v

VI

PREFACE

writers. This, too, is certainly to be expected in analyses of a subject like creativity. In a sense this book is a projection of our strong belief that we must develop a more creative trend in American education. We are in a brains race with Soviet Russia and the need is urgent. It is true that a beginning has been made in recent years by means of research studies, conferences, and published articles. Much remains to be done, however, in translating theories into action in the classroom and in developing the best atmos¬ phere for creative thinking. This applies as well in the professions, in business and government, and in our personal life. Carl H. Grabo dramatized this need in 1948 when he stated in

The Creative Critic: “Considering man’s hostility to change and inno¬ vation, ... it is astonishing that so much of creative and imaginative genius has contrived to leave its impress on the human race. Yet who can doubt that more, habited in weak bodies, blasted early by ignorance and cruelty and superstition, has perished with no record? In our com¬ paratively low civilization a little is done under favorable circumstances to salvage great talent, to give it opportunity to grow and express itself. Yet how pitifully meager is our salvage and how great the waste! We know that this is so. A more civilized time than ours will strive to develop this, the greatest of all natural resources.” By selecting and arranging the best thinking on Creative ProblemSolving of the 1950’s we thus hope to increase interest within colleges and universities in developing this greatest natural resource. Our book is also intended as a reference work for any interested “student,” inside or outside of formal educational programs. The Compendium of Re¬ search on Creative Imagination and the Selected Publications List in the Appendix will also make easier his further reading. We do not emphasize any one technique for creative thinking to the disparagement of others. Nor do we believe that group activity is the best or only approach. We are frankly interested in making man a more productive thinker, an innovator par excellence, by all the means at our command. This includes developing a creative climate internally, as provided by an individual’s attitudes, skills, and knowledge; and ex¬

ternally, as provided by his environment. We recognize no one writer as having a monopoly on ways to produce good ideas. In our opinion the best creative thinking about creative problem-solving is still over the horizon. Certainly the practical applications of what we already know have been explored nowhere near the limit. We must not only use what we know but strive to discover new techniques. Human nature resists change, and the “bold innovator” has seldom been a popular hero in his lifetime. Unfortunately, this reluctance to explore the new has deep roots in the field of education.

PREFACE

Nevertheless, according to Dr. John Rader Platt, the Chicago physi¬ cist, after “air, water, food, and in severe climates, protection” the fifth need of modern man is Novelty or Change. He tells us that this need “can be called in a mathematical sense—‘information,’ for a continuous, novel, unpredictable, redundant, and surprising flow of stimuli.” He goes on: “Our sense impressions must be organized into meaningful patterns if they are to bring us much information. But the most impor¬ tant pattern of all is the pattern of change.” We foresee a mounting interest in Creativity as soon as change and its catalytic values are appre¬ ciated. This will come among students in particular once they recognize that the skills of stimulating the imagination enhance the personality— that they provide greater mental strength. Carl R. Rogers, the psychologist, emphasizes the need for research into the process of creativity, the conditions under which it occurs, and ways it may be facilitated. We heartily concur. In fact we searched for selections that deal with these significant divisions. We recommend to future researchers a concerted attack by all the means at hand in each of these three areas. The Rockefeller Brothers Report on The Pursuit of Excellence plainly listed creative talent as one of our greatest national resources. Let us agree and recognize that the creative person is not necessarily the one who scores highest on intelligence tests. We have barely begun to give encouragement to those gifted individuals, whatever their station, who can add to the world’s knowledge. We must now find better ways of discovering these creative persons and of conserving and cultivating their talents. And we must reinforce our efforts to strengthen whatever latent creative ability exists in all individuals for their own self-realization. In our opinion every school and college must teach creative problem-solving both in currently estab¬ lished courses and in new courses specially designed for the purpose. Our debt to all who have contributed selections is great. We thank those who have given advice and encouraged us. It is not possible to list all who have generously helped. However, we are most indebted to the one man whose name symbolizes the current emphasis on the subject of creative problem-solving, Alex F. Osborn, chairman of the board of the Creative Education Foundation. It was he who first focused our attention on the exciting concept of applied imagination, and who has constantly encouraged us in our efforts to learn more. We foresee many uses for these readings—as a reference source, as a supplementary textbook, as a means for further reading and research. The advanced reader will discover dozens of areas for investigation once he surveys the limits of our present knowledge of the creative process. _ It is easy to be content with what we have. The selections of this

vii

Vlll

PREFACE

book are for the promotion of constructive discontent. Without that spirit, as Voltaire wisely says, “we should still be feeding on acorns and sleeping under the stars.” Sidney J. Parnes H. F. Harding

Table of Contents

Preface Introduction

Part I

lee h.

Bristol, jr.

Creative Education in the Space Age

v xi

1

SELECTIONS

I

The Need for a More Creative Trend

2 3 4

Creativity: Education’s Stepchild

in American Education Developments in Creative Education

F. HARDING

VIKTOR

LOWENFELD

3 9

ALEX F. OSBORN

D

E. PAUL TORRANCE

31

Developing Creative Thinking Through School Experiences

Part 11

5 6 7

HAROLD

The Creative Process—Philosophy and Psychology of Creativity

The Scientific Study of Inventive Talent Toward a Theory of Creativity

49

L. L. THURSTONE

5i

CARL R. ROGERS

63

A Conceptual Model for Integrating Four Approaches to the Identification of Creative

8

Talent Creativity as an Intra- and Inter-personal Process

9 IO n 12 13

Emotional Blocks to Creativity Obstacles to Creativity How the Brain Creates Ideas

MOONEY

73

MORRIS

I. STEIN

85

A. H.

MASLOW

ROSS L.

105

RALPH W. GERARD

ll5

Education for Innovation

JOHN

The Psychology of Creative Thinking Groups

JACK MATTHEWS

Part 111

E. ARNOLD

I27 *39

Creative Imagination: Research Into Its Identification and 149

Development 14

93

TUMIN

MELVIN

Creativity: Its Measurement and Development

J. P. GUILFORD

IX

151

X

TABLE

OF

CONTENTS

SELECTIONS

75

A Tentative Description of the Creative Individual

16 Can Creativity Be Increased? iy Psychological Foundations of Applied Imagination 18 Imagination—Undeveloped Resource 19 The Psychology of Imagination 20 The Measurement of Individual Differences

calvin w. taylor Sidney

j.

parnes

richard p. youtz

169 185 193

gough

217

frank barron

227

harrison g.

in Originality

r.

c. wilson,

J. P. GUILFORD, AND P. R. CHRISTENSEN

Part

IV Operational Procedures for Creative Problem-Solving

21 Useful Creative Techniques 22 Developing a Creativeness in People 23

Methods

24

Do You Really Understand Brainstorming?

25

Suggestions for Brainstorming Technical

26

Creative Action—the Evaluation, Development,

of

and Use of Ideas

Part

Arnold

251 269

zuce kogan

277

john

e.

parnes

283

Joseph g. mason

291

b. moore

297

Sidney j.

leo

V Case Studies of Educational Programs for the Deliberate Development of Creative Problem-Solving Ability

27

249

john w. Lincoln

Furthering New Ideas

and Research Problems

239

305

The Creative Problem-Solving Course and Institute at the University of Buffalo

Sidney j. parnes

307

harry l. hansen

325

george i. samstad

333

28 The Course in Creative Marketing Strategy at Harvard Business School 29

General Electric’s Creative Courses

Appendices A Compendium of Research on Creative Imagination B Selected Publications on Creative Thinking (1950-1960) C A Dozen Problems Suggested by Excerpts from The Pursuit of Excellence: Education and the Future of America (The Rockefeller Report on Education)

D Index

343 369

373 377

INTRODUCTION

when someone once asked

my father: “What is your job as chairman

of the board of your company?” he gave an answer which might well set the tone for readers of this book. “My job,” he said, after considerable thought, “is to try to keep closed minds open.” Creative education, the creative process and what research has to tell us about it, problem-solving procedures, and case studies—these are the areas explored by the more than two dozen authors who are repre¬ sented in this book. I welcome the chance to salute the work of editors Harding and Parnes, because I have come to know and admire both men through my work as president of the Creative Education Foundation, a founda¬ tion dedicated to the encouragement and support of research and teach¬ ing in the field of creative thinking. There seems to be a groundswell of interest in the field of creative thinking these days. We hear increasingly of new research on the subject. We hear of more courses in creative thinking and, perhaps more sig¬ nificantly, we see evidence that educators are taking a more creative approach to existing courses in many fields as well. We see evidence of this interest in the number of books and articles appearing on the subject, the many workshops and conferences devoted to it, even the way the word “creative” is overworked and misused these days! For the beginner today a number of good books are available on creative problem-solving. This book does not attempt to duplicate such material, which is competently covered elsewhere. It is rather an attempt to provide a source book on the subject for those who would like to go further, for those who would like to have in one volume significant material which is representative of different schools of thought during the 1950’s—a decade which probably witnessed more “new thinking” on this subject than any decade in history.

XU

INTRODUCTION

In editing just such a book, Dr. Sidney J. Parnes of the University of Buffalo and Dr. Harold F. Harding of Ohio State—both of them men close to the new work in this field—have drawn their representa¬ tive chapters from a wide variety of sources from distinguished psychol¬ ogists and educators to engineers, inventors, and marketing specialists. This book is not designed to be read at one sitting, and certain sections (like the Compendium or the studies summarized in the Youtz selection) are purely for reference. To become acquainted with this book you may wish to: 1. Read the preface, which states the objectives and sets the tone of this book. 2. Glance at the names of the different parts and the chapter titles under them. 3. Read the editors’ introduction to the particular part in which you are interested. 4. Read first the chapter within that part which interests you most. (Checking the head-notes at the top of each article will help you find your way around, too.) 5. Look over the appendices as well. The Compendium contains sixty brief summaries of research studies which may interest you. (For example, you may find a particular research study referred to in one of the chapters in this book. You may wish to check the alphabetical Compendium reviews to see if further information is available on that particular study. The list of “Selected Publications on Creative Thinking: 1950-1960” in Appendix B can be used to find further works by certain authors and to find additional literature related to the question of creative problem-solving.) You may see this book as a reference text, a background for study and discussion, a “next step” after an introduction to the subject. You may see it as a “backbone” for advanced course work, correlative reading for courses into which creative-thinking principles and procedures are to be introduced, or maybe as a kind of historical record of creative problem¬ solving in the 1950’s. No matter what your own particular interest, chances are this versatile book can prove helpful to you in a variety of ways. If I were called upon to choose a kind of keynote text for this book, a quotation the reader would do well to bear in mind as he begins to study the material in this book, I think I should choose the words of a British friend of mine who said: “We must be openminded enough to realize that a thing may be true even if we have not heard of it before, and indeed may be true if we definitely disagree with it. We must seek for the truth and not for the confirmation of our preconceived ideas.”

INTRODUCTION

Put another way, isn’t the job of all of us who want to grow “to try to keep closed minds open”? When a college student not long ago asked Bernard Baruch if he thought we would see permanent peace and an end to the Cold War in our time, he smiled and said he was not sure, but he felt all of us needed today the sober optimism of a prisoner he once heard about. The prisoner, it seems, had been condemned to death by a sultan but was reprieved at the last minute and given a year to live on one condition. The condition: that in one year the prisoner teach the sultan’s best horse to fly. When he heard about his reprieve, the prisoner was overjoyed. “But you’ll still have to die,” cell mates reminded him. “This just means a year of postponement!” “That’s just the point,” said the man. “Don’t you see? In one year the sultan might die. In one year I might die of natural causes. And in one year—who knows?—that horse just might learn to fly!” In the face of dark headlines these days—news of international discord and domestic tensions of one sort or another—most of us want to avoid the extremes of escapism on the one hand and defeatism on the other and to bring to world problems—international, national, and local—the gifts of faith, courage, and creative imagination which can help us deal with them. America needs now more than ever education in creative thinking to enable us to achieve our potential development for the problems ahead. Certainly all of us are conscious of Russian progress in the sciences. American concern about that progress, as well you know, has caused a critical re-examination of our own curricula in the physical sciences. As I see it, this re-examination should include, however, not only a review of what is being done in these sciences but a review of what is being done to introduce creative thinking into existing courses in the humanities and social sciences as well. To me, this heavier accent on creative thinking wants to be an important part of the way in which America faces the future. When you see, as I have seen, how creative thinking can change the whole landscape of a person’s life; how creative development can help, for example, the person who thought the answer to his restlessness might lie merely in changing jobs or moving to a new community, when you see how creative development can help such a person to see the same old places and the same old faces but see them differently because of new open-eyed vision, you get some inkling of how enriched a life can become through the development of one’s creative ability. It is the hope of the editors of this book that you will want to explore the field of creative thinking. If you do so with an open mind,

xiii

XIV

INTRODUCTION

I warn you: it can be a thrilling experience. Why, who knows? In your own particular area of interest you may even discover that your best horse can learn to fly! Lee H. Bristol, Jr.

President Creative Education Foundation

PART I

Creative Education in the Space Age

HIGHER

EDUCATION

HAS

BEEN

UNDER

CLOSER

SCRUTINY

EVER

SINCE

THE

Soviets put the first Sputnik into orbit in the fall of 1957. Parents, teachers, and students themselves have begun to wonder whether our present kind of education is good enough in the Space Age. Our old values have been questioned. Our old methods have been attacked. Our faith in learning largely by memory has been gravely shaken. The articles in this opening Part are designed to confirm these doubts and to give foundation to the other parts of the volume. They report in broad terms the need for a more creative trend, why creativity has not been accepted in the past, some recent developments in higher education and adult education, and finally the possibilities of fostering creative habits in the elementary and secondary school systems. These new findings and recent developments are presented, frankly, to encourage the reader to want more information. We are obviously trying here to develop the “constructive discontent” that is so necessary for any form of creative problem-solving. In the largest sense the problem which our writers present throughout the book is: How can the in¬ dividual’s potential for creativity be identified and more fully utilized? Gilbert Highet reminds us in his brilliant essay “The Unpredictable Intellect” that “one of the heaviest responsibilities in education is to do justice to exceptional minds, remembering that they may emerge in any place, at any time, and in any body—even a clumsy and misshapen frame may hold a brilliant mind.” The papers by Lowenfeld and Torrance serve to challenge teachers to find the exceptional mind and then to nurture it to its full development. We commend these selections to all who love to teach. Highet complains that education in America is too easy to get and that it does not carry over to adulthood. The teaching of ways to be more creative would help correct these faults. As all who have concerned themselves with the subject will testify, creativity is one of the most I

difficult of man’s achievements; and yet once learned it marks the true artist or scientist. His productivity does carry over to adult life. Further, the truly creative person, like the man of eloquence, has the capacity to open doors and reach the hearts of men everywhere.

Selection i HAROLD F. HARDING

THE NEED FOR A MORE CREATIVE TREND IN AMERICAN EDUCATION

this paper was presented

at the 1958 Creative Problem-Solving Institute

held at the University of Buffalo. The author is a professor of speech at The Ohio State University and a major general in the U.S. Army Reserve. He has served as a consultant to the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College and to the Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus. In addi¬ tion to his lectures on problem-solving, he helped to plan the first seminar in Creativity conducted at Battelle in February 1961. The questions for educators at the close of the paper are worth serious answers by all who believe that our present teaching methods deserve continuous evaluation.

3

4

HAROLD

F.

HARDING

When Alex Osborn asked me to speak here today, it did not take long for me to accept his kind invitation. He’s the kind of a person people naturally want to be with and, based on my experience in Buffalo two years ago, I knew I’d like to be with all of you. I discovered then that you don’t have to be “tetched” to be in¬ terested in Creative Problem-Solving— but that it helps. I frankly confess to being a little tetched—especially about my topic —“The Need for a More Creative Trend in American Education.” In the academic world you have to be a little odd to discuss this subject. Why? Because American Higher Education is, I regret to say, oriented more towards Critical Thinking dian towards Creative Thinking. We produce critics rather than artists or poets or inventors in the broad sense of those magnificent words. Our graduate students far too often grow up in an atmosphere of skepticism, of indecision and doubt, and of strong negative condi¬ tioning. They hear from their elders far too frequently the expressions so familiar to you: “This won’t work; we tried it once.” or “It’ll cost too much.” or “That was thought of long ago.” and finally that most hoary chestnut of all: “If that idea was any good, somebody would have tried it before.” These attitudes, I regret to say, are often expressed by our so-called leaders— men who have “arrived” in their chosen professions. In reality, these “leaders” con¬ stitute a powerful group who block crea¬ tive thinking and often hinder creative problem-solving. Universities have more than their fair share of these so-called “leaders.” They really add up to a Strate¬ gic Intrenched Command for massive re¬ taliation. They murder good ideas.

The main reason, therefore, why I’m glad to be here this morning is that I find myself among persons who instinctively say: “Well, let’s give this problem a fresh look.” or “There surely must be a better way to do the job.” or “Why can’t we make a breakthrough by all working together.”

I I’ll give you three good reasons why we need a more creative trend in Ameri¬ can Education. Then I want to talk about how we can develop this more creative trend. First: We are not now giving crea¬ tivity the attention it deserves in our cur¬ ricula—high school, college, or graduate and professional school. It is easy to prove this statement and I wish I had time to make a whole speech on it. Instead, I’ll refer you to the recent report of the American Council on Edu¬ cation called General Education—Explora¬ tions in Evaluation. The Index contains 21 references to “Critical Thinking” and 2 to “Creative Thinking.” Let me read you this brief paragraph: The issue of creative thinking was regarded as important but outside of the province of the Committee to resolve. The Committee was unwilling to take sides as to any differences which might exist be¬ tween the creative act and the critical act. Rather the Committee was willing to ac¬ cept, for purposes of compromise at least, the hunch that creativity and criticalness might be merely differing degrees of the same essential process.1 I call that a statement by a profes¬ sional mugwump, and by that I mean a 1 General Education—Explorations in Evaluation, Paul C. Dressel and Lewis B. Mayhew, Washington, 1954, p. 37.

NEED

FOR

CREATIVE

TREND

man with his mug on one side of the fence and his wump on the other. To this paragraph I offer in contrast the plaintive plea of John Ciardi, the poet: But where, in what curriculum ever, has there been, or can there be a course in inventiveness—which is to say in creativity. The truly creative—whether in art, in science, or in philosophy—is always and precisely that which cannot be taught. And yet, though it seems paradoxical, creativity cannot spring from the untaught. Creativity is the imaginatively gifted re¬ combination of known elements into some¬ thing new.2 That last sentence or definition is to me a brilliant re-statement of Alex Osborn and I urge you to remember it. “Crea¬ tivity is the imaginatively gifted recom¬ bination of known elements into some¬ thing new.” The plain fact is that there is a crying need for this concept of Creativity to be taught in every classroom in America. Where it is now taught it is by accident and chance rather than by design and un¬ derstanding. A second reason for the need of a more creative trend in American Educa¬ tion: We are now faced as never before with a world of vastly more complex prob¬ lems—and there are not nearly enough able, ready and willing solvers. Ever since the Soviets put the first Sputnik into orbit last October fourth, we’ve been painfully aware of this fact. Since October 1956, events in Poland, Hungary, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Indonesia, Venezuela, Lebanon, and now Algeria and France all remind us that there are dozens of areas in the world literally like powder kegs. One small match can start the final conflagration. If you want me to recall for you some of the purely American problems, I’ll gladly list a few: Integration, Honesty in 2 “What Every Writer Must Learn,” John Ciardi, Saturday Review, 15 December 1956, p. 7.

IN

AMERICAN

EDUCATION

5

Government, Defense Reorganization, In¬ flation, Reform in Education, Taxation— more or less, Greater Water Supply, Con¬ trol of Air Pollution, Better Television Programs, and the Recession. And so I say —If there was ever a day for more and better trained Creative Problem-Solvers, that day is the 23rd of June 1958. If you believe, as I do, that our col¬ leges and universities provide the best places for us to look for the leaders to solve these problems, I want you to know that by 1970 our college population will have more than doubled and our supply of gifted teachers will not nearly be enough— at any level or in any state you care to name. Even increased salaries and the widespread use of educational television will not answer our needs. A third reason why we need a more creative trend in American Education: The main business of American Education, at least in the colleges and universities, is training the mind. It is not to provide a place to get married, or to learn manners, or how to mix and drink Martinis, or even how to play football. The main function of a university is to provide the atmos¬ phere for scholars and students to work with Ideas creatively together. I earnestly believe that Creativity, Originality, and Inventiveness are the prime requisites for the crucial task of training the mind. Unfortunately this conception of the purpose of American Higher Education is not generally carried out in most colleges. Colleges do far too many other things be¬ fore they get around to training the mind. Most colleges are still cluttered up, as Woodrow Wilson used to say, with side¬ shows. Professor Gilbert Highet of Columbia has stated the way to create the right con¬ ditions in a little essay called “Training the Thinker”: No, we can never tell how great minds arise, and it is very hard to tell how to detect and encourage them when they do

6

HAROLD

F.

HARDING

appear. But we know two methods of feeding them as they grow. One is to give them constant challenge and stimulus. Put problems before them. Make things difficult for them. Produce things for them to think about and ques¬ tion their thinking at every chance. They are inventive and original. Propose experi¬ ments to them. Tell them to discover what is hidden. The second method is to bring them in contact with other eminent minds. It is not enough, not nearly enough, for a clever boy or girl to meet his fellows and his teachers and his parents. He (or she) must meet men and women of real and unde¬ niable distinction.3 II That quotation provides the general setting for a few specific hypotheses and recommendations I now want to make. I promised you some remarks on how we may develop a more creative trend in America. We must, each of us, tackle this prob¬ lem of developing a more creative trend in our own environments. You people in this very room make up the best Task Force for the assignment in America today and I urge you to consider what I am about to say: First: We need to know far more about the Creative Process than we now know. Psychologists like Dr. Guilford and Dr. Stein and engineers like Professor Arnold are helping. We must support them and we must encourage Dr. Parnes and others to develop the fundamental research we need. Here are a few of the problems craving for investigation: i: How can we give students more opportunities to exercise and develop some Individuality in their Thinking? (Recom¬ mended by Professor John E. Arnold of Stanford University.) 2: What is

originality?

Ability

or

3 Gilbert Highet, Man’s Unconquerable Mind, New York, 1954, p. 40.

Attitude? How can we encourage it? (Recommended by Dr. J. P. Guilford of the University of Southern California.) 3: How can we discover latent and potential Creative Capacity at an early age so that it does not become side-tracked into non-creative areas? (Recommended by Dr. Morris I. Stein of the University of Chicago.) Second: We must more clearly recog¬ nize the values of both individual and group activity in Creative Problem-Solv¬ ing. Both methods are needed and neither has a monopoly on good results. Third: Creativity is probably not so much the result of following rules or hypotheses—or even intuitions or wild guesses. It thrives best under proper under¬ standing of men and motives, rewards and recognitions. We must therefore study the conditions that best support Creativity. You can buy the most expensive rose bushes in the world but without proper planting, the right soil, fertilizer, insecti¬ cides, water, sunshine, and loving care— your roses may never see the light of day. So it is, I believe, with Creativity. Fourth: Let us repeat from the house¬ tops the doctrine that Alex Osborn so wisely espouses: Creativity and Originality are usually the result of the rearrange¬ ments of Ideas already at hand. Indeed, Simplicity is usually the chief character¬ istic of all Creative Ideas. We must dis¬ cover new and simple ways for the re¬ grouping of familiar ideas—possibly by addition, subtraction, multiplication, or division. If computers can do all these numerical processes without brains then why can t we—with brains—do the same for Ideas? Fifth and Finally: We hear much nowadays about Decision Making—an art that seems to be getting more complicated, more time consuming, and less dependable in many ways. Dr. Ellis A. Johnson, the Director of the Operations Research Office of the Johns Hopkins University told me

NEED

FOR

CREATIVE

TREND

last month that our Lead Time (from concept to production) in the develop¬ ment of a new Weapons System is twice that of the Russians—ten years, instead of four or five—largely because it takes so long for the Pentagon Bureaucrats to make up their minds. I tell you we must speed up this process of Decision Making—and then we must learn a lot more about the Art of Follow Up—because in Creative ProblemSolving success often depends not so much on the bright inspiration as on the hard work of testing possible solutions. There is, in fact, no substitute for the laborious task of fitting the pieces of the puzzle together. If we need to know more about originating ideas we surely need to know more about pursuing them to their final development. Did you read Charles F. Kettering’s recent article in the Post on his troubles and trials in developing the self-starter? Without Kettering’s indomitable spirit of follow-through we probably would still be cranking our cars by hand today. “Boss Ket” not only had the idea but the perse¬ verance to solve it. He followed through. And so did Dr. Jonas Salk. His polio vaccine did not come the easy way. There are many resemblances between Creative Thinking and Scientific Think¬ ing. Those of you who were trained in Engineering and in the Sciences will readily recognize them.

IN

AMERICAN

EDUCATION

7

I close with an observation from the 1937 Nobel Prize Winner in Medicine, Professor Albert Szent-Gyorgyi. He says: “Scientific Thinking means that if we are faced with a problem we approach it with¬ out preconceived ideas and sentiments like fear, greed, and hatred. We approach it with a cool head and collect data which we eventually try to fit together.1 2 3 4 There is indeed, my friends, a vital need for more of that kind of scientific thinking and so also for a more creative trend in American education. I want you now to go back to your home commu¬ nities and to work for ways and means. You more than any other citizens I know are the best equipped to start the cam¬ paign. You are already pre-conditioned. Take the ten questions for education I will soon have distributed. Study them. Try them on your friends who are teach¬ ers and administrators. Get their interest and support. I conclude with a salute to Alex Os¬ born. We are here today because he had a vision about Creative Thinking more than twenty years ago. Alex, I recommend this subject for brainstorming: “How Can We Produce a More Creative Trend in Amer¬ ican Education.” Let’s begin today. [At the conclusion of his address, Dr. Harding distributed to Institute members the following questions.] 4 “An End to Tumult,” Guest Editorial, Saturday Review, 10 May 1958, p. 18.

TEN PROBLEMS FOR SCHOLARLY INVESTIGATION 1. How can we give students at all levels more opportunities to exercise and develop some individuality in their thinking? (Rec¬ ommended by Professor John E. Arnold of Stanford University.) 2. What are the Components or Aspects of Creativity; Aptitudes, Interests and At¬ titudes? 3. What is Originality? Ability or At¬ titude? How can we encourage it?

4. What is the relative importance of Fluency, Flexibility and Originality of Think¬ ing to Creative Production? 5. What is Incubation? Is it important for Creative Production? If so, how can we en¬ courage it? 6. What is the proper place of Critical Thinking in connection with Creative Think¬ ing? What is the proper balance of the two in education ?

8

HAROLD

F.

HARDING

7. What is the most favorable kind of atmosphere for the Encouragement of Crea¬ tive Thinking? (Numbers 2-7 recommended by Dr. J. P. Guilford of the University of Southern California.) 8. How can we discover latent and po¬ tential Creative Capacity at an early age so that it does not become side-tracked into non-creative areas?

9. How can we develop an atmosphere in school, in business, and elsewhere that will facilitate the Expression of Creative Potential rather than inhibit it? 10. How can we help individuals to over¬ come their Fear of the Unknown so that they will not inhibit and repress their tendencies of Self-Actualization and Growth? (Num¬ bers 8-10 recommended by Dr. Morris I. Stein of the University of Chicago.)

TEN QUESTIONS FOR TEACHERS, INSTRUCTORS, PROFESSORS, HEADS OF DEPARTMENTS, SUPERINTENDENTS, PRINCIPALS, HEAD¬ MASTERS, EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATORS, BOARDS OF EDUCATION, BOARDS OF TRUSTEES—AND ESPECIALLY DEANS AND PRESIDENTS OF COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES

1. Is CreaUve Thinking or Creative Prob¬ lem-Solving taught in your institution? 2. If not, are students taught and en¬ couraged to think creatively in their regular courses? What is the evidence? 3. Are you or your teachers encouraged to teach creatively—that is, by continually in¬ troducing and testing new and original con¬ cepts and methods? 4. Do you believe that Creative Thinking is below or above Critical Thinking in im¬ portance? Why? 5. Do you believe that Originality is vital to Creative Thinking? 6. Do you believe that the Achieving of Less Stereotyped and More Spontaneous Solu¬ tions is a way of identifying Creative Think¬ ing?

to

7. Should students who are clearly able demonstrate Creativity, Originality and

Inventiveness rewarded ?

be

specially

recognized

and

8. Should Teachers who are clearly able to demonstrate Creativity, Originality and Inventiveness be recognized by increased rank and salary? 9. To what extent is your Curriculum Planning Committee incorporating Creative Thinking or Creative Problem-Solving in your current course revision? 10. In your own personal growth and de¬ velopment, are your aptitudes, interests, and attitudes oriented more towards Critical Thinking or more towards Creative Think¬ ing? In either case, why?

Selection 2 VIKTOR LOWENFELD CREATIVITY: EDUCATION’S STEPCHILD

Viktor lowenfeld was head of the Department of Art Education at

Pennsylvania State University until his death in i960. The paper below was never published. Its substance was told to Marvin R. Weisbord, who put the ideas into the present form. It has been approved by Mrs. Lowenfeld and Kenneth Beittel, a member of Lowenfeld’s staff, as representative of Lowenfeld’s thinking about creativity. Two of the widely known of Lowenfeld’s books are Your Child and His Art, translated into five languages, and Creative and Mental Growth, a standard reference in the world of art education. Lowenfeld discovered a striking similarity between the factors of creativity in the arts and those which Guilford found to be required for creativity in the sciences. He discusses his research findings within the framework of his pleas for more emphasis on creativity in education.

9

10

VIKTOR

LOWENFELD

In the summer of 1957 I addressed the International Society For Education Through Art at its convention in The Hague. Taking part were 34 nations, in¬ cluding those behind the Iron Curtain. All sent examples of their children’s draw¬ ings and paintings, but the ones which surprised me the most came from Russia. Like many of us, I expected the drawings of Russian children to be regimented and turned to propaganda themes glorifying the regime. What I saw amazed me. Rus¬ sian youngsters between the ages of 5 and 11 had done some unusually spontaneous and creative work. I saw no political themes in this group, but often finely de¬ tailed drawings of woods, trees, houses, people—everyday scenes as seen through the eyes of children the world over. It was quite plain that the art of these Russian children was not being regimented in any way. The drawings of the Russian high school children, however, told a different story. Here was painting after realistic painting, some showing the greatness and goodness of the Soviet Union, others meaningless still-lifes. The creativity and spontaneity had fled leaving each painting looking like every other one. I went look¬ ing for members of the Russian delegation. “How come,” I asked one of them, “you fail to indoctrinate small children with your political aims while their personal¬ ities still can be molded easily?” The man smiled, but without humor. “Don’t you realize,” he lectured me, “that we must first unfold the child’s creativity. This means giving him as much freedom as possible. In our schools, for example, we would never use fixed pattern workbooks because . . “But ...” I gestured toward the high school art. “Ah,” he said, “once creativity is un¬ folded, then it must be channeled and disciplined. Not all of our most creative children become artists, you know.” I

think by now his statement is clear to all of us. It is quite possible that the Russians intuitively know something which our own research just now is tending to show: that a creative child, one who has beeriX encouraged to develop his imagination and ability freely, will bring these qualities to any work that he does. The qualities which V might make him a creative painter or writer will make him an equally creative physicist or biologist when his interests ) and talents lie in the sciences rather than the arts. The little Russian children whose spontaneous paintings I saw may never become artists. Some will be chemists, others mathematicians, still others engi¬ neers, historians, geologists, or perhaps psychologists. Whatever field they enter, however, they will bring to their work an open-mindedness, a free imagination, an individual approach, developed not only by hard work in Russian schools, but by a teaching methodology that unfolds the creative instinct before “channeling” it. Creativity, I think, is a vital element which American teaching methods so far largely overlook. We have given way to a massobsession with education since the Rus¬ sian Sputniks; but most of the ideas you read and hear for “improving” education; run in a one-way groove. “We need harder \ courses,” people say. “Our children should get more homework. They should study more science and math in school like the Russian children do. We have to get tougher.” ) These statements, I think, miss the essential thing about education: you can teach subjects'and subject-matter forever; you can “adjust” a child to his environ¬ ment forever; and, if you are lucky, you may find a way to teach a child subject matter (i.e. the facts of history, math, the sciences, etc.) and “adjust” him at the \ same time; but—and this is the big but— if your child cannot apply creatively his knowledge, he cannot make the kinds

)

creativity:

of contributions to society which “break through barriers.” By that I mean he canj not use his knowledge and his energie^ to find new ways to live, to work, to play —and to do all of these things in a world of peace rather than one of war. For more than ioo years, despite the swings in educational philosophy, our method of teaching has been to give our children “courses” in biology, or geog¬ raphy, or social studies. The student reads a textbook containing all of the facts about such-and-such a course. The teacher re¬ peats and elaborates on these facts in the classroom; then, if the student is lucky he remembers the facts at exam time. Our system has rarely attempted to develop a student’s imagination, to stretch his flex¬ ible mind in new directions, to make him think about what he has learned. He learns one body of knowledge called “his¬ tory,” another called “math,” a third called “botany.” That these isolated disciplines may be related seldom is stressed in our classrooms. Thus simply giving the student “more” of the same dry, unrelated facts in class, or “tougher” work to do (which, I suppose, means more-difficult facts to re¬ member) doesn’t solve our greatest edu¬ cation problem at all. It is like trying to improve a nineteenth-century steam engine by forcing the piston to move faster. Of course the engine will work harder. But it is still the same old engine; and in the second half of the twentieth-century we need a brand new engine, one we have never used before. The reason is obvious: we have brand new problems. The old en¬ gine worked fine when most of our people were illiterate. In the 1800’s reading, writ¬ ing, and arithmetic were the most impor¬ tant things for a man to learn. And a man who could read, write, and figure was an “educated” man. Today, thanks to the most spectacular system of mass education the world has ever seen, there are few illit¬ erates left in America.

education’s

STEPCHILD

II

But since the days of the Three R’s we have developed a whole group of sub¬ jects which never existed before. In 1800 there were no courses in literature or biol¬ ogy or economics and certainly none in personnel management or astrophysics. These disciplines have developed as we filled in gaps in human knowledge. But the methods we use to teach these subjects have developed very little if at all. They are essentially the same methods used 100 years ago to teach reading, writing and arithmetic: memorize and repeat. Our texts continue to deal with cold facts, but students are rarely encouraged to use these facts to serve their own thinking. The cold fact system has outlived its purpose, and we can toughen the system forever without making it serve education in a changing world. We have amassed great bodies of knowledge and a great deal of technical “know how.” Now we must reconcile our knowledge with its own social uses. It is in this area that the creative element in educadon is of the greatest importance. And, as I said a moment ago, we know now that creativity belongs not only to the arts but to all fields of endeavor. For many years at the Pennsylvania State University we have tried to find out what it is that makes some people very creative and others less so. We have per¬ formed many scientific studies and un¬ covered some interesting facts. It seems that the use of coloring books and pattern workbooks inhibits a child’s creative flow. Peculiarly enough the Russians understand this; there are no coloring books in Russia. Perhaps you are not disturbed that millions of American children color in such books. Your children will never be painters or sculptors; so you don’t care. But—and you should care about this—when your child’s art is frustrated, all of the qualities which may later make him another Edison or Marconi or Einstein may become inhibited. In other words, his chances for becom¬ ing a really outstanding and imaginative

12

VIKTOR

LOWENFELD

scientist, engineer, mathematician or any¬ thing else are lessened whenever his crea¬ tiveness is thwarted.

^

At Penn State we had developed what we call “criteria for creativity.” These are the qualities which we have found com¬ mon to creative persons. Naturally, as art educators, we have made ardsts and art students the subjects of our studies. The most creative ones, we find, have these qualities: flexibility; fluency; sensitivity to problems; originality; and the ability to analyze, synthesize, and redefine materials and problems and organize them coher¬ ently. I will explain these terms in a mo¬ ment. While reading the “literature” in this field, we found that a West Coast scien¬ tist named Dr. J. P. Guilford had been studying creativity too, but from another angle. He was trying to learn what it is that makes scientists and engineers crea¬ tive. In an entirely independent study Dr. Guilford also came up with a set of criteria for creativity in the sciences, and these were almost exactly the same as our own. To some, like flexibility, fluency, and sensi¬ tivity, he even gave the same names as we had. To test the interesting theory sug¬ gested by this coincidence, we launched a large-scale cooperative research project at Penn State and Ohio State this past year. Our problem: to find out (using a much larger group of subjects than we tested before) whether creative performances in the arts are based on the same character¬ istics of creativity as in the sciences. Dr. Kenneth Beittel, of my staff, and I have given various paper-and-pencil tests to large groups of students. Many are tests used by Dr. Guilford; some are our own. Here is a brief, simplified description of the eight criteria for creativity which we try to measure with our tests: Sensitivity to problems: Creative per¬ sons, we find, are among other things un¬ usually sensitive to what they see, hear, touch, etc. They respond readily to the

“feel" and grain of a piece of wood, the texture and flexibility of clay, things often hidden to less-sensitive hands and eyes. A sensitive child relates himself to the "father ’ or “mother" he is drawing to such an extent that he feels like father or mother. The importance of sensitivity, of being able to feel the problems of other people, other cultures, races, and nations cannot be over-stressed. Creative activity in the arts helps build a sensitive awareness not only to colors, shapes, textures, etc., but also to people and their feelings. And such a social awareness, we know, can be applied to creativity in areas far afield from the arts. Fluency: Fluency of ideas is another attribute of the creative person. A fluent child, depending on his needs, mav make broad or narrow strokes with his crayon on a piece of paper, or use the era von's point and flat side with varying pressures. He will be as readily fluent with paint or clay; and such a child tends also to be fluent with verbal ideas. To test a student's fluency, Dr. Guilford asks him to list as many uses as he can for an ordinary brick. In the few minutes allowed, the less fluent student may list only 12 or 15. An ex¬ tremely fluent student might list 40 or 50 including some highly imaginative ones such as “feet for a snowman.” Flexibility: Creative persons readily adapt or adjust to new situations, and we call this quality “flexibility.” Flexible chil¬ dren are not stymied when the paint runs on a watercolor they are doing. Thev brush the running paint right into the painting and make creative use of their "accident" without becoming frustrated. The color¬ ing book hurts a child’s flexibility bv im¬ posing on him a series of rigid and stereottped outlines. In one studv a group of children were asked to draw birds. Some of their drawings were richly conceived vs ith feathers, feet, and beaks showing. Afterwards the same children were given stereotyped \ -shaped birds to color in a

creativity:

book. Then, a few weeks later, they were asked again to draw birds from imagina¬ tion. The third time many of those whose birds once showed detail and imagination now modified their drawings to look more like the V-shaped stereotypes they had ab¬ sorbed unconsciously. Their flexibility had sadly diminished in this simple experi¬ ment. Originality: This is the name we give to that quality which is the direct opposite of “conformity” in thought and expres¬ sion. Creative students give uncommon responses to questions and unusual solu¬ tions to problems. Their solutions spring from the depths of their own minds rather than from something they have read or heard. To test this quality on paper we asked our students to list a half-dozen uses for common objects such as a key, auto tire, button, watch. The challenge is to list uses as different from the object’s original use and as different from each other as possible. The less creative person can’t see any use for a key other than to open a lock; the creative person makes a plumb bob of it, or a screwdriver. The non-creative child fastens his clothing with a button. In a creative child’s hand buttons become elephant eyes or other wonderful springboards to imagination. Ability to redefine and rearrange: A creative person tends to change the func¬ tion of materials he uses. He may use a piece of steel wool, for example, not for pot-cleaning but as the beard on a puppet or merely as a new texture in a collage (any combining of different materials in some organized way). Practice in using materials in new ways, we find, also stimu¬ lates a person to look for new ideas and

traditions. Analysis: By this we mean a person’s ability to arrive at details after studying a unified whole. You can analyze a tree by speaking of the characteristics of its branches, twigs, leaves, and bark rather than its over-all shape. Creative persons

education’s

stepchild

13

learn readily to analyze differences in peo¬ ple as well as in inanimate objects. It is this attention to detail which enriches any experience and makes it meaningful. Synthesis: When children “make something” out of colored paper, paste, bits of string, and toothpicks they are prac¬ ticing the principle of “synthesis,” the meaningful combination of several ele¬ ments to make something new (again, a “collage”). A creative person is quite adept at collage-making (and “mobile” making too); practicing this activity tends to loosen up a child’s creative instinct. Coherence of organization: This is the principle by which painters arrange the elements in their paintings—whether trees and houses, or lines, colors, and shapes—into some pleasing and unified whole on a canvas. It is the principle by which composers relate the movements of their symphonies to one another. When a mathematician says, “I have found an elegant solution to this problem,” he means he has found a neat, concise, economical solution in which each step follows log¬ ically. Such would be coherence in action. It is the ultimate harmony by which good books are organized and good houses built. You can see from these criteria how important it is to foster your own child’s creativity; and toward the end of this article I will give you some tips on how to do that. First let me explain how we used actual performance tests for creativity to check against our paper-and-pencil tests. It was important for us to be sure that what we measure with our written tests is the same kind of “creativity ’ you show when you paint, draw, or make something with your hands. So we gave each subject five performances in addition to his writ¬ ten tests. For one performance, each stu¬ dent received an envelope containing a piece of corrugated cardboard, string, colored yarn, ordinary shirtboard, rubber bands, toothpicks, gummed tape, a tongue

14

VIKTOR

LOWENFELD

depressor, etc. Each student was asked to make something from these materials, al¬ tering them in any way. The less creative student, with a rigid mind and few ideas, shows these qualities in his construction. His may be a simple thing with toothpicks and rubber bands used more for decora¬ tion than to hold anything to anything. A really creative student might strip away the top layer of the corrugated cardboard and bend it into a graceful shape in his construction. He might split his tonguedepressor down the center, break his tooth¬ picks in unusual ways, employ the rubber bands as a means of tension to hold the entire structure together. His finished product may be full of graceful curves and angles, his materials inventively used in much the same way that a talented archi¬ tect uses materials to build a house. In another performance test we read a line of poetry to the students and asked them to draw whatever came to mind. They used black crayon and had a choice of two different sizes of paper. We keyed our tests so that we could compare a student’s writ¬ ten work with his performances. [As a re¬ sult of further investigations, confidence in these paper and pencil tests was not re¬ warded, since they correlated minimally with art performances in this specialized group. Currently a search for more stable measures of the same criteria of creativity is under way by Dr. Kenneth R. Beittel, of Pennsylvania State University, and Dr. W. Lambert Brittain, of Cornell University.] The implications of our creativity hypotheses for education are broad. They must not be underestimated. Though we have barely begun to explore these impli¬ cations we know that they go to the heart of our teaching methods, the textbooks we use, the ways in which we design school curriculums, and so on. They affect parents, teachers, and school administra¬ tors as well as students. In art education we have recognized the importance of the

creative element in teaching for many years. This seems natural in view of the popular idea that creativeness is something which belongs only to artists, writers, musi¬ cians, and others connected with the arts. And, of course, most children still get their only exposure to the creative process in art classes. We know now that creativeness is not only the art teacher’s busi¬ ness; it is everybody’s business. If this same creativity can be just as necessary to scientists, engineers, and businessmen as it is to artists, we must begin to think about teaching all students and all courses with the creative criteria in mind. I am an art educator and would not presume to prescribe for history teachers, political scientists, biologists, chemists, business administration teachers, and the like. But I do believe that teachers in each of these fields can and must find ways to encourage creative thinking among their students. Good teachers have done this intuitively in the past by giving their stu¬ dents not only the facts of history or psy¬ chology, for example, but also problems requiring creative thought. Rarely, how¬ ever, do you find a textbook which stresses an essentially creative methodology, one which sensitizes a student to the details of a problem, requires him to work out imag¬ inative solutions, encourages his fluent thinking, establishes a more flexible use of his knowledge or shows him the relation¬ ships between all aspects of a problem. Yet we know that by encouraging all of the creative criteria in every study_ from woodshop and geometry to civics and botany—we ar.e making a priceless invest¬ ment. We are investing in a child’s future, his happiness, and the well-being of his society. It should be clear to any thinking person that pat solutions like “more scholarships” or “higher teacher salaries” will not bring to education the vital crea¬ tive methodology any more than “harder work” will. Certainly I am not against scholarships for talented high school stm

creativity:

dents who might not otherwise go to col¬ lege. But I am firmly opposed to the idea that giving a scholarship guarantees a stu¬ dent’s enthusiasm and interest in his work. When the scholarship winners get to col¬ lege, we must offer them an education which will so absorb their interest and grip their spirits that the work they are doing becomes paramount, and not the fact that someone is paying the bill. I wonder how many of today’s scholarship winners work long hours to memorize their high-school course work out of a stimulus from the subject matter and a love of study. No doubt there are some, but how many? How many others struggle for “all A’s” not out of an interest in learning but simply because that is the road to a scholar¬ ship? Are these students developing their creative faculties and will they make im¬ portant contributions to themselves and society apart from a “brilliant record’’ in school? We cannot afford to ignore these questions any longer. Higher teacher salaries, of course, will attract more capable teachers; and I am heartily in favor of this. But a teacher, no matter how bright, who has not been edu¬ cated to make the fullest use of his crea¬ tive faculties, cannot be expected to do the same for our children. The knowledgeaccumulation teaching methods used for the past ioo years must be changed. Our teachers cannot afford to be well-versed only in history, biology, music, or what¬ ever their specialty happens to be. Each must learn to use his specialty creatively and understand how it relates to other bodies of knowledge. Here again it is the creative criteria applied to whatever sub¬ ject is being studied which will encourage a student to stretch his mind into areas beyond his own. When our teachers have been so educated, we hope that they will be able to bring out the creative potential in each of their own students. No matter what field a youngster chooses for his life work—be it advertising, construction

education’s

stepchild

/5

work, or scientific research—he can ap¬ proach his problems with sensitivity, flu¬ ency, originality, flexibility, and so on. If he has been stimulated to develop these qualities in biology, history, and math classrooms (as well as art class), he will stand a much greater chance of making lasting contributions in any field. Fortunately you, as a parent, can do many things to foster your child’s creative growth without throwing the entire bur¬ den on the schools. For example, you can encourage him to use his eyes, ears, and hands continually (provided, of course, that you are a sensitive person too). You can make him conscious of the beauty of a row of tulips in a garden, of the differences between the long, flowing leaves of a weep¬ ing willow tree and the green-and-silver symmetry of a silver maple leaf. Encour¬ age him to touch the rough, ridged bark of an old oak tree and the smooth, mottled bark of a sycamore. Eet him feel the tex¬ ture of wool and velvet and rayon in your clothes and in his own. Make him con¬ scious of the way the cat’s fur feels. At Penn State we often take our children’s art classes to the university farms where they can see and touch the woolly sheep, watch the cattle graze, note the way the horses run. This is wonderful stimulus to a child’s creative sense and will give direc¬ tion to his personal expression later on. A simple statement like, “Johnny, do you smell the burning leaves in the wind?” can open up a rich sensory experience to a youngster, an experience which might go quite unnoticed but for you. Even the sounds of the wind through the trees, the call of a robin in the early morning, the bubbling of brook water against smooth stones for a young child can be spring¬ boards to an expanding sensitivity which will enrich his entire life. Call your child’s attention to such details, and, if you have never paid much attention to them your¬ self, this would be a good time to unlimber your own sensitivities. It can be a remark-

l6

VIKTOR

LOWENFELD

ably rewarding experience for you both. Don’t, however, inhibit your child’s instincts by giving him coloring books. A mind sensitized to colors, textures, pat¬ terns, sounds, and smells can never find room for expression in a coloring book. Filling in fixed outlines strangles the crea¬ tive use of crayons and paint. The draw¬ ings themselves impose on your child adult stereotypes of horses, dogs, people and houses. Remember, things look quite a bit different from two or three feet off the floor. Remember too that such inhibi¬ tion and rigidity carries over to all of your child’s activities, even if you can’t see the effect. Don’t be fooled by the “success¬ ful” man who says, “Coloring books never hurt me and I don’t see how they can hurt him.” The answer to such reasoning is, “How do you know?” There is no way to evaluate what a man might have been or done, given a chance. We \now how coloring books hurt creativeness in chil¬ dren; we believe every child deserves the maximum chance to grow. If you want to encourage your child’s creative growth, give him a box of good, thick crayons and a pad of newsprint. Peel the paper from the crayons and break them in half so he won’t feel compelled to keep them new and perfect. Then leave him alone, and he will create. If he says he “can’t draw” you can recall with him the smell of the leaves, the feel of the cat, the motions he goes through to throw a ball, the way a tree looks. Or give him a box of scrap materials—paper, string, yarn, toothpicks—which he may want to organ¬ ize into a collage with the aid of some glue. As he tries to transfer his sense im¬ pressions to paper or materials he will gain facility and confidence. You might also give him several pounds of pliable clay to experiment with; or give him a box of water colors, or show card paints and a pad of newsprint. Just a few colors will do. He can learn to mix the rest. You’ll find that there is no surer way to nourish

a creative instinct than to provide the means for a child to seek his own kind of expression. Don’t worry about the forms such expression takes as long as it flows freely. Don’t, for instance, “show” him how to stroke with a brush. Let him dis¬ cover his own ways. Don’t, whatever you do, suggest that his paintings and draw¬ ings must “look like” whatever he claims they are. His scribblings and daubings may open the door to a far more creative life than the perfectly-copied drawings his little friend makes from a magazine. And, above all, remember you are not trying to make your child an artist. It is his creativeness you care about: his sensi¬ tivity; originality; adaptability; fluency; flexibility; and the powers of synthesis, analysis, and redefinition. You can encour¬ age all of these in his daily life. Some day they may come home to roost in unex¬ pected fields like medicine, business, law, or science, and you may have reason to be extraordinarily proud of that little boy or girl who sprawled on the living-room rug with a box of broken crayons filling large sheets of cheap paper with figments of childish imagination. Our creativity studies, let me point out, are still in their infancy. We really only have scratched the surface; but we have made enough of a scratch to know that a whole new world of human poten¬ tial lies underneath. We feel that there is a strong thread of creativeness which links all fields of human endeavor. We know that finding ways to lengthen that thread and make it more flexible is one of the great challenges of our age. Our educa¬ tional system must be modified in many ways if that little child on the living room floor is to realize his highest potential. So I would like to make a suggestion I fervently hope will be taken seriously by parents, educators, and others who care about the future of our children, our na¬ tion, our world. I would like to see one of the great foundations, which give millions

creativity:

for research in many fields, set up an in¬ stitute to further investigate the creative process. Such an institute would bring to¬ gether the best minds in the education world not for a day or a few days, but for a year or longer. These normally hardpressed scholars could turn their collective talents to one of education’s pressing prob¬ lems: what kinds of textbooks we need to teach creativity; what changes must be made in school curriculums and teacher education in light of our creativity studies; how our teaching methods must be revised to develop thoughtful and creative citizens as well as fact-filled ones. In such an in¬ stitute I would hope to see our own studies

education’s

stepchild

ij

expanded and new ones made of the best ways to unlock the potential of every school child in every classroom. In an age of increasing juvenile delinquency and mental illness, in an age where man seems threatened with self-extermination because of the wonderful forces his mind has un¬ leashed, we must find ways to use this mind-power creatively—to build rather than to destroy. And we have no time to lose. As the noted British scientist Fred Hoyle said recently, “The nation that neg¬ lects creative thought today will assuredly have its nose ground into the dust of to¬ morrow.”

Selection 3 ALEX F.

OSBORN

DEVELOPMENTS IN CREATIVE EDUCATION

if there

is

one person

who has contributed most to the development

of the creative problem-solving movement over the longest span of years it is Alex F. Osborn. His activities during the past twenty-five years include writing, speaking, and the practical applications of the methods of “Applied Imagination.” This is the title of his best-known book, now in its twelfth printing. It has been translated into seven languages and is the standard textbook in many college courses. In 1954 Osborn established the Creative Education Foundation for the purpose of helping education to do more to develop creative efficacy. He is now chairman of the board of the Foundation. The University of Buffalo awarded him its Chancellor’s Medal for his public service and his prolonged efforts to bring about a more creative trend in education. He has also received two honorary degrees in recog¬ nition of these efforts. This selection is Osborn’s address to the sixth annual Creative Problem-Solving Institute at the University of Buffalo in i960.

79

20

ALEX

F.

OSBORN

Our recent progress has been mainly by way of confirming the soundness of what we stand for. Until last year we could offer only superficial evidence in support of our principles and procedures. These have now been confirmed by scientific research. Teachability: Our belief in the teach¬ ability of creativity was previously based on common sense and amateurish testing. Scientific research has now proved that a course in creative problem-solving can definitely improve ability to think up good ideas. The technical reports of these findings have been published in the Journal of Applied Psychology and the Journal of Educational Psychology.

Utah Conference: Through the Na¬ tional Science Foundation, the federal gov¬ ernment sponsors the Utah Conference, composed of leading psychologists and headed by Dr. Calvin Taylor of the Uni¬ versity of Utah. This Conference period¬ ically evaluates and initiates research in creativity. Last June they invited Dr. Parnes to present our findings on develop¬ ment of creative ability. The Conference established a new section in this area, with Dr. Parnes as chairman. Long pull: Despite all this confirma¬ tion, it will be all too long before educa¬ tion does what it should do to develop creative ability. According to a Columbia University study, it takes about 15 years for a new teaching concept to reach 3% of the nation’s schools, and 50 years for it to reach all of them. ORIENTATION

By way of getting our bearings, let’s start with this over-simplification of our mental functions: 1. Absorption—the ability to take in knowledge. 2. Retention—the ability to retain and recall knowledge.

3. Judgment—the ability to think logically. 4. Imagination—the ability to think crea¬ tively. Through those first two functions, we learn. Through the latter two, we thin\. Steps in process: The creative prob¬ lem-solving process ideally comprises these procedures: 1. Fact-Finding Problem-definition: Picking out and pointing up the problem. Preparation: Gathering and analyzing the pertinent data.

2. Idea-Finding Idea-production: Thinking up tenta¬ tive ideas as possible leads. Idea-development: Selecting from re¬ sultant ideas, adding others, and reprocess¬ ing by means of modification, combina¬ tion, et cetera.

3. Solution-Finding Verifying the tentative solutions by tests and otherwise. Adoption: Deciding on and imple¬ menting the final solution. Evaluation:

Regardless of sequence, every one of those steps calls for deliberate effort and creative imagination. At best, the process involves an alter¬ nation between creative thinking and ju¬ dicial thinking—on a sort of stop-and-go basis. Problem-definition: Of all the steps in creative problem-solving, the two most subject to neglect are problem-definition and idea-production. Einstein had this to say about prob¬ lem-definition: “The formulation of a problem is far more often essential than its solution, which may be merely a mat¬ ter of mathematical or experimental skill.” FACT-FINDING

Problem-definition is often the main product of scientific fact-finding.

DEVELOPMENTS

For example, the Gluecks of Yale have made a magnificent investigation of juvenile delinquency. They have even de¬ veloped a formula which makes it possible to predict, with high probability, whether or not a boy of six will turn out to be a delinquent. Five factors: The Gluecks have nar¬ rowed the determining factors down to these five: (i) The father’s discipline. (2) The mother’s supervision. (3) The father’s affection. (4) The mother’s affection. (5) The family’s cohesiveness. Strangely enough the Glueck study ruled out poverty as a significant factor. As Bruce Morgan has said, the same slum can turn out an A1 Capone and an A1 Smith. The Glueck research is cited to illu¬ strate how fact-finding can define the problem and can supply the needed knowl¬ edge. By adding adequate idea-finding, we could do more than predict—we could help reduce delinquency. Facts not enough: “We’ll explore and deplore; only that and nothing more.” Those are the words used by a U.S. Sen¬ ator in condemning our national habit of going all-out in fact-finding and then petering out when it comes to applying creative thinking to the facts as found. For example, there were mountains of organized fact-finding during the last steel strike. I wonder if there was even a mole-hill of organized idea-finding. Einstein’s statement: If Dr. Albert Einstein was right in concluding that “imagination

is

more

important

with

CREATIVE

EDUCATION

21

laws of probability, plus empirical evi¬ dence. This principle is now confirmed by scientific research which found that those who thought up twice as many ideas thought up more than twice as many good ideas in the same length of time. A separate study further confirmed this principle. In these tests, the first half of the ideas produced during a sustained effort were compared to those in the second half. As Figure 1 shows, the second half provided 78% more good ideas than did the first half. QUANTITY BREEDS QUALITY Relative number of good ideas produced in later versus earlier stage of effort...

!1_I SECOND HALF of total output ■*—Plus 78% FIRST HALF of total output

T" Figure 1 And surely we are more likely to cross the river between problem and solution if we have a raft of good ideas to go on. Incidentally, the qualitative scoring in all this research was based on the po¬ tential usefulness and relative uniqueness of the ideas. PRINCIPLE OF DEFERRED JUDGMENT

than

\nowledge,” how can we justify failure to

supplement fact-finding ing?

IN

idea-find¬

IDEA-FINDING

In ideative effort, quantity breeds quality. Until recently we could substan¬ tiate this principle only on the basis of the

Now for a basic principle which, when properly applied, can substantially im¬ prove idea-output. The principle calls for deferment-of-judgment during ideative ef¬ fort to keep the critical faculty from jam¬ ming the creative faculty. This principle is just as productive in individual effort as in collaboration. When a group follows this principle, the pro¬ cedure is known as brainstorming.

22

ALEX

F.

OSBORN

Group ideation: Several research proj¬ ects have confirmed the potency of the deferment-of-judgment principle. In one of the Meadow-Parnes studies a group brainstormed the assigned problem while

As Figure 3 shows, when individuals adhere to the principle of deferred judg¬ ment they generate almost twice as many good ideas as when they allow judgment concurrently to interfere.

BRAINSTORMING BY GROUP VERSUS

CONVENTIONAL IDEATION BY INDIVIDUALS (Production of good ideas in same period of time)

!1_l Number of Good Ideas

by GROUP (with judgment DEFERRED)

-Plus 70% ->• Number of Good Ideas

by INDIVIDUALS (with judgment ALLOWED)

---— Figure 2 an equal number of ideators individually attacked the same problem, but did so in the ordinary, non-brainstorm way—with¬ out deferring judgment during the ideative effort. As Figure 2 shows, the brainstorm¬ ing group produced 70 % more good ideas than the non-brainstorming individ¬ uals, in the same length of time.

Yale Study: You may remember Dr. Donald Taylor’s famous Yale Study. Here is what he has said about the above re¬ search: “Nothing in our original study, in two subsequent studies, or in two studies done elsewhere which have come to my atten¬ tion, would lead me to question the find¬ ing that individuals working under the

HOW DEFERMENT OF JUDGMENT ENHANCES INDIVIDUAL IDEATION (Same period of time)

Number of Good Ideas

WITH deferment of judgment Plus 90%

Number of Good Ideas

WITHOUT deferment Figure 3

Individual ideation: What if those in¬ dividual ideators had deferred judgment, instead of allowing judgment concurrently to intrude? Would they then have pro¬ duced more good ideas? If the deferment-of-judgment princi¬ ple were applicable only to group effort, we could seldom use it. But—at any time and almost anywhere—we can apply that principle in our individual ideation, with highly profitable results.

rules of brainstorming produced more good ideas than did individuals working under non-brainstorming instructions.”

BRAINSTORM PROCEDURES

Personally, I use “solo brainstorming” a lot. For example, a magazine editor re¬ cently asked me to suggest ideas for ar¬ ticles within a certain category. In less

DEVELOPMENTS

than an hour I produced 22 themes. I could not have done this if I had allowed my critical faculty to cramp my creativity during that hour. And, of course, I also believe in group brainstorming. My old company, BBDO, has put this procedure to profitable use in thousands of cases, ever since 1938. And the results in other organizations—in in¬ dustry, government and in education— speak for themselves. Case-histories: In addition to our Foundation’s previous reports on hundreds of case-histories, we have just published a new brochure covering a session conducted by Lee Bristol, Jr., and Catherine Ready. It’s a splendid example of how group brainstorming can produce a working check-list for creative action. Mutual stimulation: Here’s some new light on the way ideas spark ideas in group brainstorming: My old company analyzed the cross¬ fertilization that occurred during 38 re¬ cent sessions. All told, 4,356 ideas were produced. Over 33% of these were “hitch-hikes”—ideas sparked by the sug¬ gestions of other panelists. Many of these 1,456 group-generated ideas would prob¬ ably have been missed if each panelist had ideated on his own. Triple attack: Just as I believe in de¬ liberate alternation of thought processes between judicial and creative, so I also believe in alternation between individual effort and group effort. Specifically, we recommend a three-phase ideative attack of the assigned problem: (1) Individual ideation. (2) Group brainstorming. (3) Individual ideation.

EDUCATIONAL AIM

Our main aim is to help education do more to develop creative ability. Our efforts to this end are three-fold: 1. To facilitate establishment of separate courses in creative problem-solving.

IN

CREATIVE

EDUCATION

2J

2. To encourage incorporation of creative principles and procedures into existing courses. 3. To help bring about a more creative type of teaching in all subjects—a type of teaching which will combine think¬ ing effort with learning effort, and thus develop thinking ability while implant¬ ing knowledge. Creative teaching: In this area we have made a start by setting up a model in the form of a Workshop which pro¬ duced 540 ideas for teaching history more creatively. These suggestions were eval¬ uated by Dr. Harvey Rice, erstwhile professor of history, now president of Macalester College and a leader in this In¬ stitute. Dr. Rice’s report said this: “Ap¬ proximately 250 of the ideas are of usable quality, and many of the others can serve as helpful stimulants to any teacher who wants to teach more creatively.” Our Foundation hopes to sponsor sim¬ ilar workshops on other subjects within the near future. Creativized courses: As to incorpora¬ tion of creative principles and procedures into existing courses, an outstanding exam¬ ple is the one designed by Professor Harry Hansen of Harvard. His detailed descrip¬ tion of this creativized course is available free from our Foundation. [See Selection 28.] Here are some other subjects into which creative teachings have been woven: Aeronautics, Agriculture, Architecture, Business Management, Chemistry, Educa¬ tional Research, English, Engineering, Geography, Group Discussion, Human Relations, Industrial Design, Journalism, Landscape Architecture, Physical Educa¬ tion, Physics, Public Speaking, Recreation Leadership, Retailing, Teacher Training and Work Simplification. Economics: One of our Institute lead¬ ers is Dr. Jere W. Clark. He has creatively revolutionized his course in Economics at the University of Chattanooga. Whereas only about 25 % of the senior class elected

2^

ALEX F .

OSBORN

this course, 48% of all U.C. students chosen for Who’s Who in American Col¬ leges and Universities were course-mem¬ bers.

SEPARATE COURSES

We have no way of knowing how many regular courses have incorporated creativity, nor do we know how many separate courses in creative problem¬ solving have been inaugurated. We esti¬ mate that there have been over 1,000 such courses in industry and in education. We do know that over 37,000 members of the Air Force have taken this subject in the ROTC, on some 200 campuses. Another index is the fact that my textbook is now in its 12th edition, 100,000 copies. Adult education: Our progress in the field of adult education is particularly gratifying. One of the first to include our subject in this area was Dr. Carl E. Minich, recently elected President of the Na¬ tional Association of Public School Adult Educators. As director of evening pro¬ grams at the Amherst Central High School in suburban Buffalo, he has featured our course ever since 1954. The success of those classes attracted the attention of the Adult Education Board in nearby Kenmore. As a result, the Kenmore catalog offered a similar course, limited to 25 students. The registration totalled 63. So two classes were started there. The teacher is a housewife, a busy mother of two children, the wife of an industrial executive. Her name is Mrs. Volney P. Holmes.

TEACHING TOOLS

In most courses in creative problem¬ solving, lecturing is kept at a minimum, and no attempt is made to memorize the text. The class time is mostly devoted to practice, with all students participating.

This is the toughest type of teaching. Luckily, we now have tools to facilitate instruction at every step. Instructor’s Manual: Our new 140page Manual is now available for instruc¬ tors. This was written by Dr. Sidney }. Parnes as a result of his five-year experi¬ ence as a full-time teacher of creative problem-solving. That Manual is supplemented by a Guide which includes nearly 300 prob¬ lems and topics from which the teacher can choose assignments for classwork or homework. Then, too, a new 100-page Workbook is available for students. Comment re tools: Concerning these teaching aids, Dr. J. P. Guilford of the University of Southern California has written as follows: “They are a godsend to those who teach courses in Creative Thinking.” And here’s the verdict of Adolph Stransky who conducts our course at the Ford Motor plant in Mexico: “With these aids, any competent teacher can suc¬ cessfully conduct courses in creative prob¬ lem-solving.” COURSE EVALUATION

Until recently the world took it for granted that a person was either creative or non-creative and nothing could be done about it. But now, scientific research has proved that creative ability can be delib¬ erately and measurably developed. Over 1,000 students have completed creative problem-solving courses at the University of Buffalo. As a result, plenty of testees have been available for fullscale evaluation of such training. In fact, 330 students have served as subjects in the series of scientific studies so far conducted at UB. A most significant finding is pin¬ pointed on this chart (Fig. 4). As Figure 4 shows, a course in crea¬ tive problem-solving can almost double the average person’s ability to think up

DEVELOPMENTS

good ideas. More specifically, it shows that those who take these courses are able to average 94% better in production of good ideas than those without benefit of such a course. 94% IMPROVEMENT IN ABILITY TO THINK UP GOOD IDEAS (Number of good ideas within same time)

1

1

1

by those who had taken course 1 -*-Plus 94%-► by others

~T Figure 4

Acid test: This type of course-evalua¬ tion is quite unique. Whereas proficiency in other subjects is usually measured in terms of absorption and retention, these problem-solving courses have been eval¬ uated in terms of improved ability. Personality traits: Personality traits likewise improve as a result of courses in creative problem-solving. Two of the wellknown Harrison Gough tests were given to 108 students, 54 of whom had taken a course in creative thinking. In selfconfidence, in initiative and in related qualities of leadership, the course students surpassed the non-course testees to a meas¬ urable degree. LIBERAL ARTS

As to liberal arts curricula, some aca¬ demic educators object to our teachings on the ground that they are tainted with vocationalism. When I asked a professor of philosophy to explain this, he said that our subject has too much to do with making a living. I blinked and then asked, “Why teach the art of speaking and not teach the art of creative thinking?” Traditional texts: Other educators claim that creative thinking is now taught

IN

CREATIVE

EDUCATION

25

in the typical liberal arts curriculum. If so, where is it taught—in the department of psychology or in the department of philosophy? If in the latter, does it come under logic? Researcher Angelo Biondi has just completed a study of the outstanding text¬ books in these areas. Here are the re¬ sults. . . . Psychology texts: Out of the xo lead¬ ing textbooks on psychology, the one by Koch devotes 17 out of 1,543 Pages to crea¬ tive imagination. The one by Johnson de¬ votes 29 out of 515 pages. The Kretch and Crutchfield text devotes 41 out of 736 pages. The other seven leading textbooks devote an average of two pages apiece to this subject. All told, less than i/5th of 1% of these 10 texts has to do with crea¬ tive imagination. Of the 10 leading textbooks on logic, one devotes 15 pages, another 5 pages to this subject. The other eight completely ignore creative thinking. Speech departments: Happily, the heads of speech departments are more and more receptive to the inclusion of creative training in their curricula. And this does seem like a logical development in the light of history. In ancient Greece, one of the main purposes of liberal arts education was to enable the ruling classes to tal\ well. The seven basic subjects were designed to im¬ prove the personal effectiveness of aristo¬ crats who were due to shine in govern¬ ment, in the army, in the law, in church affairs, in landlordism. This education was therefore essentially vocational for such students. It goes without saying that ideas are the life-blood of good writing and good speaking. Therefore, isn’t it as important to teach students to thinl{ well as to spea\ well? Isn’t it axiomatic that a person can talk better if he can think more crea¬ tively ? Use by business: In the world of busi¬ ness the use of our teachings and of our

26

ALEX

F.

OSBORN

idea-finding procedures has continued to increase. One of our Institute members is a man who has put over 1,500 employees through short courses in creative problem¬ solving. He is C. K. Turman of the United States Steel Corporation, supervisor of edu¬ cation and training at the Gary Steel Works. Another of those present is Dr. B. B. Goldner, Director of Creative Education at LaSalle College in Philadelphia. He has taught our subject in many an industry— to top brass as well as to supervisory em¬ ployees. His course at Smith, Kline and French is in its third year. His course at Sunbeam in Chicago has just caused Sun¬ beam of Canada to take him on. Another leader of the Institute, Roy Schneider, has been conducting evening courses, in his office, for Roanoke business¬ men. He built a special 20-student class¬ room for the purpose. When last I heard, he had 300 requests for enrollment. Work-simplification: One of our In¬ stitute members has developed an exciting use of our idea-finding procedures in the field of work-simplification. This man is Glenn Cowan of the B. F. Goodrich Com¬ pany. He can cite many examples of sav¬ ings resulting from his application of crea¬ tive principles to work-simplification prob¬ lems.

in their program. One of our leaders is Dr. James E. Gates, Dean of Business Ad¬ ministration at the University of Georgia. He has conducted many of these abbre¬ viated institutes—even for hen-raisers and miners of marble. EFFECT OF CREATIVE TRAINING ON AWARDS

Average of Low Producers

Average of High Producers

Plant Literature: Industries have pur¬ chased for employees nearly a million copies of my booklet called “The Gold Mine between Your Ears,” a popularized condensation of my textbook. All royalties go to the Creative Education Foundation. PUBLIC AFFAIRS

Suggestions Systems: Over 6,000 com¬ panies operate organized Suggestions Sys¬ tems. Research has shown that creative training can make these departments far more productive and profitable. Figure 5 summarizes a study made by A. L. Simberg in the A. C. Spark Plug Division of General Motors where over 1,000 have taken a ten-session course in creative thinking. The net of the above figures is this: The awards of those who had taken the course averaged an increase of over $40, as against an all-plant average increase of only $4.

We have been progressing in most areas of public affairs. We have fallen flat, however, in our efforts to persuade Wash¬ ington to apply creative procedures to our foreign problems.

Conventions: More and more conven¬ tions are including problem-solving clinics

efforts that industrialists put into bettering the things they make.”

David Lawrence: As to the need for this, David Lawrence has said: “Admit¬ tedly lots of research is applied to our in¬ ternational problems, but mainly in the form of finding facts and making diag¬ noses. There is but little by way of con¬ scious creative effort to arrive at new and good ideas to guide our international pol¬ icies—relatively nothing compared to the

DEVELOPMENTS

Carnegie Endowment: Some of those outside the government have started to do something to stimulate more creative thinking. For example, the Carnegie En¬ dowment for International Peace is con¬ ducting a nation-wide contest for ideas as to how to make foreigners feel more friendly toward America. Toledo Plan: Similar action is spring¬ ing up here and there. For example, one of our Institute members is an outstand¬ ing citizen of Toledo, Dr. Horace E. Allen. He has worked up a plan for lo¬ calized “Ideas-for-Peace Panels.” Incidentally, despite the pressures of his medical practice, Dr. Allen finds time to teach our course at the University of Toledo. He is typical of the many vol¬ unteers who eventually will lead educa¬ tion to do what it should do to develop creative ability. Russia: The round-by-round record of our bout with Russia is an indictment of our ingenuity. Khrushchev put his finger on our weakness when, last March, he publicly challenged the West to initiate some concrete ideas to blunt the threat of war. Hamstrung by truth: In our bout with Castro, he has won almost every round with heavy blows, all below the belt. And that brings up this point: We have to be even more productive of good ideas than our enemies. Why? Be¬ cause our imaginations are handicapped by our moral code. As long as our press remains free, our imaginations will be hamstrung by the need to stick to the truth. If an American leader should say that black is white, he would be laughed out of power. With Russia, however, the sky’s the limit. The Soviet leaders are free to fabricate big lies at any time and quickly put them into orbit. Idea-finders: Nevertheless, we could still do much to overcome our ideative gap. For example, if you were Secretary of State and faced or foresaw a problem of crucial import, wouldn’t you like to

IN

CREATIVE

EDUCATION

27

have a highly intelligent group of strate¬ gists spend 100 hours doing nothing but thinking up 100 good ideas by way of possible solutions? Evaluation: Your own experts could then evaluate those 100 ideas. If they threw out 80 of them, you would still have 20 left. They could then re-process these discards and probably arrive at five still better ideas. You could then evaluate these 25 most promising alternatives and thus arrive at the best course or courses of action. Cost: Of course, such a board of strat¬ egy should operate in privacy. And it should be made up of men both highly creative and also well versed in interna¬ tional affairs. If only one worthwhile sug¬ gestion came out of a whole year’s work by such a group, the cost would be a pea¬ nut compared to the cost of a single missile. We Americans organize everything else. Why not organize our thinking— especially our idea-finding?

ARMED FORCES

The vital part that imagination plays in our Armed Forces has been highlighted by recent research at the University of Southern California under the direction of Dr. J. P. Guilford. The net of the find¬ ings is this: Creativity is indispensable to military leadership. Copies of this research report are available on request. Use of teachings: The need for crea¬ tive education is being widely recognized in the Armed Forces. The Air Force inaugurated its course in the ROTC early in 1954 and has of¬ fered similar training at the Air University and in other establishments. Creative training has also been in¬ augurated here and there by the Navy and the Marines. By way of a believe-it-ornot, Lieutenant J. T. Rigabee has reported that applied imagination has been taught aboard the Sea Wolf.

28

ALEX

F.

OSBORN

As to the Army, an outstanding ex¬ ample is the Management School at Fort Belvoir. Ever since May 1956, creative principles and procedures have been fea¬ tured. Over 1,900 have taken this training. The commandant of the Management School, Colonel W. W. Culp, is a mem¬ ber of our Institute. Chiefs of staff: Just before he died, Deputy Secretary of Defense Donald Quarles issued a memo to all Chiefs of Staff recommending the adoption of “plans and ideas designed to increase the impact and effectiveness of the efforts of the Department of Defense.” General M. O. Edwards, then Chief of Staff of the Alaskan Command, de¬ termined to implement the Quarles memo. As a result, Joe Mason, one of our leaders, conducted a course at the Elmendorf Air Base for 46 selected officers who have since started a program of creative prob¬ lem-solving throughout the Alaskan Com¬ mand. OVERSEAS

Our teachings continue to spread throughout the free world. The foreign editions of my books are now available in France, Switzerland, Belgium, the Nether¬ lands, Italy, Spain, Israel, Latin America, India, Japan and Free China. Free China: As to the Chinese edition, I accidentally heard about this through an American officer who had been in For¬ mosa. On checking I found that the Taiwan Department of Defense had pub¬ lished my book during the previous year. I immediately rushed my ex-post-facto per¬ mission, and thus saved my nunc-pro-tunc face. France: The latest news from Europe is from Georges Rona. He reports that he is about to start our course at the Sorbonne and will soon deliver a series of lectures at NATO Defense College.

PUBLIC AWARENESS

Thank Heaven our nation has become far more conscious of the importance of imagination. Signs of this awakened aware¬ ness include the increased frequency of reference to creativity in print and on the air. Picking the gifted: In all probability our awakened awareness will have saved America from a tragic blunder in regard to insuring the right kind of scientific leadership for the future. All agree that we should choose the most gifted of our young for adequate education. Until recently, however, these gifted were to be chosen on the basis of IQ and teacher-preference, with prac¬ tically no regard to potential creativity. Inadequacy of IQ: As Dean Stoddard of N.Y.U.’s School of Education has pointed out, IQ tests reveal nothing con¬ cerning creative talent. And the research of Dr. Paul Torrance at the University of Minnesota shows that highly creative chil¬ dren are often disliked by teachers and therefore unlikely to be recommended. The Torrance research has confirmed similar studies at the University of Chicago under the direction of Dr. Getzels and Dr. Jackson. Danger: The startling fact is this: If selection is based on IQ alone, we will miss at least two out of three of those best fitted to be our scientific leaders of the future.

Creativity tests: Dr. J. P. Guilford of the University of Southern California de¬ serves a distinguished service medal for enabling educators to measure the creative potential of our youngsters. His talentidentification tests have recently been ap¬ plied to thousands of teen-agers, and most successfully so. Training the gifted: Since there is no longer any doubt that creativity can be deliberately developed through education.

DEVELOPMENTS

the question is this: What will be done to enable our truly gifted boys and girls to become even more creative? Will their future training tend to fan or fade their spark ? The need to develop the creative po¬ tential of the gifted has been recognized by the Buhl Planetarium of Pittsburgh. This institution has been conducting a Saturday morning school for outstanding highschool students. The curriculum includes a course in creativity, with Robert Carmen as instructor. Mounting awareness: Awareness of the need of creative education is mounting. Most significant is the action of the recent Conference sponsored by the National Sci¬ ence Foundation. The end result was a list of recommendations to colleges and uni¬ versities, starting with these words: “De¬ velop educational programs which require the student to exercise a high degree of originality.”

RESEARCH

Public awareness of the importance of creativity is reflected by the upsurge of research in this field. Contrast: About 10 years ago, Dr. Guilford analyzed the index of Psycho¬ logical Abstracts from its beginning. Over 121,000 titles were listed. Only 186 of these had to do with creativity—about i/ioth of one per cent. In contrast to those statistics, 60 recent projects are summarized in our new Compendiums of creativity research, compiled by Dr. Sidney Parnes and pub¬

IN

CREATIVE

EDUCATION

29

lished by our Foundation. Copies are available gratis. [See Appendix A.] Basic research: Now and then our Foundation is asked to take on projects of an esoteric nature—projects which would involve fundamental research rather than the applied research we have been doing and will continue to do. I sympathize with the ambition to break through the barriers of the abstruse. I am happy to see so many universities carrying on such projects. I am particularly glad that the California Institute of Tech¬ nology is using a computer to figure out just which brain processes result in crea¬ tive thought. The advance report of this basic research states as follows: “By the rapid simulation of brain functions on the machine, a nearly infinite number of hypotheses about human thinking can be tested.” That’s fine. But let’s face the fact that human imagination will still be needed to program the computer. Simplicity: We now know the arith¬ metic of deliberate creativity. Only a few of our people have as yet been benefited by this knowledge. Surely, our Founda¬ tion can serve our country better if we do our utmost to spread this knowledge and let others delve into the calculus of our subject. I am strong for keeping our teach¬ ings simple—simple enough for Tom, Dick and Harry to comprehend. Thus more and more of our people will be more likely to put our teachings to ever greater use, for their own good and for the good of the nation.

Selection 4 E.

PAUL TORRANCE

DEVELOPING CREATIVE THINKING THROUGH SCHOOL EXPERIENCES

the bureau of educational research

at the University of Minnesota

has been a leader in studies on the identification and development of creative thinking among children. The director, E. Paul Torrance, is especially known for his development and adaptation of tests for crea¬ tivity in grade school children. In this paper, delivered to the Minneapolis Teachers League on May 20, 1959, he tells what teachers can and should do to develop creative thinking in children. He is obviously well aware of his audience and is attempting to offer practical suggestions based substantially on his research findings. The twenty ideas listed herein may be considered as guideposts for all teachers who care to do something about creativity in the class¬ room. Each idea may well be worth exploring separately at a series of teachers’ meetings on the problem of handling the talented child. The references included are valuable for amplifying each idea and for sug¬ gesting additional projects. Torrance has conducted or has under way a number of creativity studies. One promising new area is the transfer-effect of training in creativity. For example, in one experiment children who had been given intensive training in creative thinking for four months showed transfereffects in creative writing. Other experiments have measured the effects of more creative teaching in the language arts. Here again there were gains in the student’s growth in creative writing ability. Investigations are now in progress at Minnesota to show the degree of social stress among students grouped homogeneously as opposed to those grouped heterogeneously on the basis of IQs or on creative ability. For further detailed reports the reader should write to the Bureau of Educational Research, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis 14, Minne¬ sota. A book entitled Guiding Creative Talent by Torrance is forthcom¬ ing in 1962 (Prentice-Hall). R. E. Myers and Torrance published in 1961 an elementary school workbook designed to enhance creative abil¬ ity. It is entitled Invitations to Thinking and Doing (Perceptive Pub¬ lishing Company, Box 4086, University Station, Minneapolis 14). 31

J2

E.

PAUL

TORRANCE

something which has never existed. It in¬ volves adventurous thinking (Bartlett, 1:958), getting away from the main track, breaking out of the mold. It represents a successful step into the unknown (Ferren, 1953) and in the process one thing leads to another. Included also are such things as: invention, discovery, curiosity, imagina¬ tion, experimentation, exploration, and the like. Creative ideas ultimately become evi¬ dent in such things as scientific theories, inventions, improved products, novels, poems, designs, paintings, and the like. There are many important reasons why the development of creative thinking is important!" First, it is important from the standpoint of personality development and mental health. I believe there is little question that prolonged, enforced repres¬ sion of the creative desire may lead to ac tual breakdown of the personality. Its stifling cuts at the very roots of satisfaction in living (Patrick, 1955) and ultimately creates overwhelming tension. The re¬ sponses of schizophrenics to one of our tests of creative thinking manifested an amazingly impoverished imagination, in¬ flexibility and inadequacy of response, in¬ ability to summon any response, incon¬ sistency of response from one situation to another, and the like. We found none of the rich fantasy life and wild imagination popularly attributed to schizophrenics, only a tremendously impoverished imagination^'Secondly, there seems to be little doubt that creative thinking contributes importantly to the acquisition of informa¬ tion and may ultimately be demonstrated to be as important in this respect as mem¬ ory and similar intellectual functions, *>Third, creative thinking is certainly essential in the application of knowledge to

During the past year, the Bureau of Educational Research has engaged in a series of studies concerned with the de¬ velopment of various aspects of creative thinking and of peer sanctions against the most creative members of classroom groups in the early school years.1 We have de¬ vised a variety of instruments for elicit¬ ing various types of creative thinking, ad¬ ministered these instruments to over 1400 elementary school children and to over 1000 adults, constructed a number of de¬ velopmental curves for various creative functions, conducted two experiments in which we attempted to control a number of important variables, and explored a variety of problems connected with the identification and development of creative^ talent. Although this research project is in its infancy and firm information from any source is scarce, I think that we can out¬ line a number of tentative principles which can safely guide teachers in developing creative thinking through school experi¬ ences. In the years to come, I hope that many of you will be willing to help us develop new ideas and obtain firm in¬ formation about those which are now uncertain.

WHAT IS CREATIVE THINKING AND WHY IS IT IMPORTANT? Before attempting to set forth a set of proposed principles for developing crea¬ tive thinking, perhaps I should say some¬ thing about what is meant by creative thinking and why its development is im¬ portant. We

have

defined

creativity

quite

simply as “the process of forming ideas or hypotheses, testing hypotheses, and communicating the results.” Implied in this definition is the creation of something new, something which one has never seen or 1 The research on which this paper is based is supported in part by funds from the University of Minnesota Graduate School.

daily personal and professional problems. For example, I have long contended that the reason courses in education and psy¬ chology have made no more difference than they have in the behavior of class¬ room teachers is that they have not been

CREATIVE

THINKING

THROUGH

trained to use their imagination in apply¬ ing such knowledgefpFourth, I believe it is tremendously important to society that our creative talent be identified, developed, and utilized. The future of our civilization depends upon the quality of the creative imagination of our next generation. Per¬ haps our need is not so much for more scientists and engineers but for more crea¬ tive scientists and engineers. SOME ASSUMPTIONS Before discussing the development of creative thinking through school experi¬ ences, several basic assumptions should be made clear. First, I think we have to ac¬ cept the assumptions Wilson (1958) makes in his chapter in the NSSE Yearbook on the Education of the Gifted, “that the abilities involved in being creative are uni¬ versal, i.e., everybody possesses these abil¬ ities to some degree; that these abilities are capable of being increased by training; and that it is one of the school’s legitimate functions to provide such training.” Sec¬ ond, I have made the assumption that cre¬ ativity, particularly its intellectual curi¬ osity aspect, is manifested early in the life cycle and that its development depends upon “experiences in the social and physi¬ cal world and the values of the cultural environment” (Fletcher, 1958). Finally, in the study of creative thinking in the early school years it seems necessary to in¬ clude discovery as well as invention, just as long as it involves something new to the child. It also seems necessary to include the production of ideas which contribute to the pleasure and welfare of the group to which the child belongs. Rarely do we expect from children in the early school years original contributions to the culture. As Russell (1956) concludes in this ex¬ cellent summary of research concerning children’s thinking, we assume that in de¬ veloping the first two types of creative thinking, we are paving the way for the

SCHOOL

EXPERIENCES

type which represents an original contribu¬ tion to the culture. Now I would like simply to outline twenty ideas or principles for developing creative thinking through school experi¬ ences. These ideas have been borrowed from many sources. They seem sound, however, in the light of our research in the Bureau of Educational Research, my own experiences in trying to stimulate crea¬ tive thinking in a variety of situations, and the research which has been conducted in this field. Where appropriate, an attempt will be made to support these ideas with data from our research. 1. VALUE CREATIVE THINKING It is my firm belief that every edu¬ cator from the kindergarten through the graduate school should always be on the alert to notice new ideas proposed by children and young people, and to en¬ courage such individuals to continue the development of their creative talents. Every educator should consider this as im¬ portant, or more important, than teaching information. Creative thinking is ap¬ parently important in acquiring informa¬ tion. I say “value creative thinking” be¬ cause children are going to achieve those things which are valued by the society in which they live. In the matter of evaluat¬ ing school achievement we have consider¬ able evidence to indicate that people learn those things on which they are evaluated or “graded.” If we expect to develop crea¬ tivity, we must learn to evaluate it. There are, as I see it, two major ob¬ stacles to achieving this goal which must be understood and mastered. The first is in recognizing and appreciating the child’s creative productions. It is particularly dif¬ ficult for a conventional teacher to recog¬ nize and appreciate the contribution of an unconventional or an unloved and un¬ lovely child. Getzels’ (1958) recent re-

34

E.

PAUL

TORRANCE

search gives eloquent witness to this fact. He compared high school students in the upper 20 per cent on creativity but not in the upper 20 per cent on IQ with students in the same school who were in the upper 20 per cent on IQ but not in the upper 20 per cent on creativity. Although there was a 23-IQ-point difference in the means of the two groups, there was no difference in achievement as measured by standardized achievement tests. It was found, however, that the teachers preferred by far the high IQ group to the high creativity group. In current studies being conducted at the University Elementary School, the Pratt Elementary School of Minneapolis, and the Washington Elementary School of Northfield, similar results are being ob¬ tained. Using teacher rankings, the highly creative group compared to the high IQ group tends to be less well known by the teacher, less desirable as pupils, more un¬ ruly, more dominant, less ambitious, less friendly, and less studious. On the basis of peer nominations, they are perceived as having fewer good ideas, more naughty ideas and more silly ideas, and as being more uncommunicative about their ideas. On a measure of psychological acces¬ sibility, they were found to be less ac¬ cessible psychologically than the high IQ group. Even an examination of the re¬ sponses on the tests of creative thinking makes it easy to understand why the highly creative individual is disturbing to the class and to the teacher. A second obstacle to valuing crea¬ tivity is our tendency to overrate the finished product or the “cultural con¬ serve”—the finished poem, the masterpiece of music or art, the balanced interpersonal relation, the organized behavior of a cham¬ pionship team, and the like. We are too easily deceived by the comparative per¬ fection and smoothness of these master¬ pieces and evaluate them as if they were the immediate deliveries of some creative act.

2. MAKE CHILDREN MORE SENSITIVE TO ENVIRONMENTAL STIMULI Almost all of the recent studies of highly creative individuals in a variety of fields emphasize the importance of being sensitive, of being open, to some kind of environmental stimuli. I have a very strong hunch that it is a matter of being sensitive to the stimuli which furnish the raw materials for the particular kind of creativity involved. For example, a person can be creative about interpersonal rela¬ tions by being sensitive to human feelings, emotions, needs, and the like and it may not matter that he is not sensitive to chemi¬ cal phenomena (Torrance et al., 1958). The creative chemist, however, needs to be highly sensitive to chemical phenomena and it may not matter that he is insensi¬ tive to many interpersonal phenomena, at least insofar as his creativity as a research chemist is concerned (Stein, 1956). There is a need, however, to make young children more sensitive to a wide range of environmental stimuli. We do know that young children can be helped to sense such stimuli more clearly and vividly and that this affects the quality of their creative productions. In one experi¬ mental validation of this idea, Littwin (Russell, 1956) tried three methods of de¬ veloping imaginative writing with three matched groups of seventh and eighthgrade pupils. Over a ten-week period, one group practiced writing vivid descriptions of pictures which they had previously studied; the second studied literary models containing worlds of sound, color, and movement; and the third group practiced describing all the possible sensations, such as sight, smell, touch, and hearing, that they could experience in examining an ob¬ ject or situation. The group emphasizing perception through the various senses showed significantly greater gains on com¬ position tests than did the other two groups.

CREATIVE

THINKING

THROUGH

3. ENCOURAGE MANIPULATION OF OBJECTS AND IDEAS Apparently the young child has an al¬ most irresistible tendency of manipulation and exploration of objects and this seems to be the basis of curiosity and much in¬ ventiveness. Our own studies of creative thinking in the early school years show a significant relationship between degree of manipulation and the quality and quantity of inventive responses. In administering one of the tests of creative thinking, rec¬ ords concerning degree of manipulation were made on 68 first graders, 62 second graders, and 82 third graders. Tasks per¬ mitting manipulation of objects required subjects to invent improvements for a nurse’s kit, a fire truck, and a toy dog which would “make them more fun to

Mean

SCHOOL

EXPERIENCES

J5

play with.” Three degrees of manipula¬ tiveness were determined: high, medium (any observable degree of manipulation), and low (no manipulation). The results are shown in Figure 1. It was also found that boys are more manipulative than girls and become increasingly more manipula¬ tive from the first through the third grade but girls do not change significantly. Thus, to develop creative talent, I believe that it is important that children be permitted and encouraged to manipulate, to play around with, objects and ideas. 4. TEACH HOW TO TEST SYSTEMATICALLY EACH IDEA One of the most widely accepted ob¬ jectives of education is to teach the young to test reality, to give them a realistic pic-

Fluency and Flexibility Scores on Toy-Improvement Problems of High-, Medium-, and Low-Manipulation Groups in Grades 1, 2, and 3 Figure 1

E.

PAUL

TORRANCE

ture of the world in which they live. Yet I have observed at all levels of education and in many areas of adult life the rejec¬ tion of brilliant and imaginative ideas with no testing. Teachers should show pupils, beginning in the early grades, how to de¬ fine a problem and keep testing each sug¬ gestion systematically. For instance, in a practical problem the teacher or the class might identify the different ways it might be solved and encourage the pupils to try out the various possibilities. After trying the various possibilities, the child could then be permitted to decide for himself which is best. I am convinced that this can be done at a relatively early age, at least at the third-grade level. For example, last fall I saw a third-grade teacher do just this in an art class by using autumn leaves. The chil¬ dren had gathered a variety of leaves. Each child was given two sheets of paper, one to experiment with and the second to use for the final production. The children joined in a variety of experimentation. They piled leaves on top of one another, arranged them in various patterns, and the like, and placed the paper on top and rubbed wax crayons over the paper. They tried various colors. They tried rubbing hard with the crayon, rubbing light with the crayon, and the like. After this, they examined the work of the class to decide what arrange¬ ments worked best, what colors showed up best, whether hard or light rubbing pro¬ duced the best effects, etc. About three months later, I had an opportunity to ob¬ serve these children in an experiment re¬ quiring creative scientific thinking. I was quite impressed with the quality of the creative scientific thinking many of these children were able to do. I was pleased that they spontaneously developed and tested hypotheses. There is a vast amount of evidence to support the importance of training chil¬ dren to test systematically their ideas. In the domain of experimental sciences,

Taton (1957) points out that whenever a new theory arises, or when old theories seem to be in error, the experimenter is forced to confront reality with the con¬ sequences of the theory and this compari¬ son may lead to the initial idea for a new scientific discovery. In the realm of mental health, Patrick (1955, p. 89) maintains that the lack of verification or revision is the major difference between psychotic imaginative thinking and the creative thought of the healthy person. Training children to test their ideas and those of others against reality will also serve to safeguard us against some of the so-called creativity which should be legitimately looked upon with suspicion. This is what will safeguard us against brainwashing, Fascism, Communism, and the like. 5. DEVELOP TOLERANCE OF NEW IDEAS

It seems to me that an important de¬ fect of much of our educational system today is that more emphasis is placed on the establishment of behavioral norms than on the production of original work. Teachers may even be annoyed when a pupil presents an original answer which differs from what is expected, because it does not fit in with the rest of their scor¬ ing schemes for grades. They have to stop and think themselves how the unusual an¬ swer should be treated; in many cases, they cannot decide and this is disturbing. If habits of submitting these ideas to reality tests have been established, there is a basis for tolerance. In fact, an important role of the teacher or the leader is to protect and obtain a hearing for minority ideas and solutions to problems. I would also include along with the tolerance of new ideas tolerance of the creative personality. When one thinks in ways which are customarily taboo, his peers may look upon him as mentally un¬ balanced. Barron (1958) and others regard

CREATIVE

THINKING

THROUGH

this kind of imbalance as healthy rather than unhealthy. The truly creative per¬ sonality is ready to abandon concepts and sees in life many rich and new possibilities. He sees as shortsighted the claim of so¬ ciety that all its members should adapt themselves to a norm for a given time and place. For example, teachers might con¬ tribute to tolerance for creative personal¬ ities by helping pupils to test against reality many of their misconceptions con¬ cerning inventors and scientists. That such erroneous and damaging concepts exist has been demonstrated recently through the research of Remmers and his asso¬ ciates (1957) and Mead and Metraux (1952). 6. BEWARE OF FORCING A SET PATTERN It is quite likely that just as there is a scientific method there is a creative method. I am not quite ready to formulate this method, but I feel quite certain that it will recognize a vast variety of work methods. There are many ways to de¬ scribe a flower, plan a house, write a para¬ graph, or test a scientific hypothesis. Free¬ dom and permissiveness, with guidance reduced to a minimum, is an important ingredient of much creative work. This, I might say, is one of the most vexing problems today in scientific re¬ search. Admiral Rickover (1959) has called our attention to this problem quite emphatically and criticizes some of our institutions for their persistence in believ¬ ing that novel projects can be executed through routine methods. Taton (1957) has also pointed out the dangers of placing too much power in the hands of those who criticize and evaluate scientific research. Now that much of our research is sup¬ ported by federal agencies which decide on the basis of conformity to rather “set patterns” what research will be supported, this danger is quite apparent.

SCHOOL

EXPERIENCES

7. DEVELOP A CREATIVE CLASSROOM ATMOSPHERE I am beginning to feel that I can iden¬ tify rather accurately teachers who develop creative classroom atmospheres, without ever seeing the teacher. First, it is re¬ flected in the artifacts found in the room. It is even plainer as I start administering even a group test, such as Buck’s draw a house-tree-person test. There is an at¬ mosphere of “released control,” permis¬ siveness, a sense of security, an absence of fear, flexible ways of working together, and the like. For example, I became quite curious last fall about the reactions of classes to the use of rulers in making their drawings. In some classes, no one thought of using a ruler; in most, someone asked if it were legitimate to use rulers. In what I consider the most creative class we have thus far studied (a third-grade class), al¬ most every child took out his ruler spon¬ taneously and used it appropriately and flexibly. No one thought to ask if it were legitimate. I had told them that they could make their drawings in any way that they liked and they took me at my word. They had been experiencing a permissive class¬ room atmosphere and had learned to use creatively whatever was not forbidden. The classroom group may stimulate certain types of creative thinking. Children should learn early that creative ideas are shared and enjoyed by the group. I have been tremendously impressed by the ability of first grade children to do “group brainstorming.” They very effectively hitchhike on the ideas of one another. The role of the low participator in these firstgrade groups tends to be particularly im¬ portant. The high participators elaborate upon the ideas of the low participators. After such considerable elaboration on an idea has taken place, one of the low par¬ ticipators will then chime in with an idea which sets the group off on an entirely

$8

E.

PAUL

TORRANCE

different line of thinking. Education would do well to maintain such an im¬ portant role for the highly creative, but frequently silent, individual. Regarding the matter of stimulation and creativity, there is available at least one pertinent study (O’Brien, et al., 1954) at the nursery-school level. This study, grow¬ ing out of the Union College Studies in Character Research, indicated that if the child is given an increased number of ma¬ terials and opportunities in various media, he will develop a greater enjoyment of creative imagination experiences. 8. TEACH THE CHILD TO VALUE

as imaginative role playing, telling fantastic stories, making unusual drawings, and the like should be considered as normal aspects of a child’s thinking (Russell, 1956, p. 363). Certainly we are interested in de¬ veloping a sound type of creativity, but it seems essential that this type of fantasy must be kept alive until the child’s in¬ tellectual development is such that he can engage in a sound type of creative thinking. There have been scattered evi¬ dences in our testing of children in the first and second grades that many of those with impoverished imaginations have been subjected to concerted efforts to eliminate fantasy from their thinking too early.

HIS CREATIVE THINKING 9. TEACH SKILLS FOR AVOIDING It is important that the child learn early to place value on his own ideas and to trust his perceptions of reality. One ap¬ proach to this is to have the child form the habit of recording what he thinks. This helps him to appreciate the value of his imagination and at the same time dis¬ courages excessive daydreaming. As the child sees his own ideas expressed in some concrete form, he should be encouraged to continue his efforts. With older students it is good to have them form the notebook or the “idea-trap” habit. We frequently let good ideas slip away from us, because we do not memorize them or record them on paper. Even though the idea may at the time seem a little far-fetched and it is dif¬ ficult to determine its real significance, it is wise to record it. The idea can be criti¬ cized, modified, or rejected at a later time, or it may stimulate another really im¬ portant idea. Many inventors (Rossman, 1931) and idea men (Clark, 1958) report that this habit pays off richly. In connection with this principle a word should be said about the matter of fantasy. Many parents and teachers have looked upon fantasies as something un¬ healthy to be eliminated. Fantasies such

PEER SANCTIONS The importance of valuing the highly creative individual so that he will not have to exist as a miserable deviate in the shadow of his more athletic and socially adept peers has already been stressed. There is some evidence, however, that the highly creative individual brings upon himself many of his own woes. In one of our studies (Torrance, 1959b), we formed groups of five children and in each we placed one of the most creative children in the group. We then placed each of these groups in a situation requiring creative thinking and involving competition among groups. Five groups at each grade-level from the second through the sixth were studied. The focus of our observations was upon the techniques used by the groups to control the most creative mem¬ ber and the strategies of the most creative in coping with these pressures. Much of the behavior which we observed suggests that the highly creative individual may in many cases be responsible for his own woes. At the second-grade level, our sub¬ jects displayed what we regarded as a very primitive kind of behavior. The most

CREATIVE

THINKING

THROUGH

creative members of these groups were quite unpleasant, showing little considera¬ tion for the group, little or no goal-orien¬ tation, and little or no identification with the group, and little heed to the leadership attempts of their less creative peers. If this kind of behavior is common in secondgrade groups, it is quite possible that at this early stage behavior patterns become established which are later difficult to extinguish. In the third grade, the most creative subjects worked independently and were ignored for the most part. This tendency persisted into the fourth grade; the most creative members assumed little responsibility for leadership and were given little credit for the important con¬ tributions which they actually made to the group’s success. The highly creative sub¬ jects in the fifth grade manifested more leadership attempts and were more dom¬ inant but brought criticism upon them¬ selves by appearing too “scientific,” being too domineering, and the like. These tend¬ encies became more pronounced in the sixth-grade groups. An examination of almost any of the many lists of personality characteristics of highly creative individuals suggests that it may be almost inevitable that such indi¬ viduals will alienate their peers. For ex¬ ample, look at the following list of char¬ acteristics found by Sprecher (1959) for highly creative engineers: independence of others, productive of novel and uncon¬ ventional solutions, preference for new and difficult problems, energy and alertness, high degree of technical knowledge and academic achievement, and the like. It seems obvious that the problem resolves itself into one of helping an individual maintain those characteristics which seem essential to the development of his creative talent while at the same time helping him to acquire skills for avoiding or reducing to a tolerable level the peer sanctions, so that he will have an opportunity to find

SCHOOL

EXPERIENCES

J9

expression for his creative talent. Stein (1956) offers a set of interesting sugges¬ tions concerning this problem on the basis of his study of research chemists. If we translate Stein’s principles concerning in¬ dustrial researchers, the advice to teachers would run something like the following: Help the highly creative child to maintain his assertiveness without being hostile and aggressive. He must be aware of his su¬ periors, peers, and subordinates as per¬ sons. He may work alone but he must not be isolated, withdrawn or uncom¬ municative. In the classroom he must be congenial but not sociable; outside the classroom he must be sociable but not in¬ timate. He must “know his place” without being timid, submissive, or acquiescent and must “speak his mind” without being domineering. As he tries to gain a point, he can be subtle but not cunning or manip¬ ulative. In all relationships, he must be sincere, honest, purposeful and diplomatic but not unwilling to accept “shortcuts.” In the intellectual area, he must learn to be broad without spreading himself too thin, deep without being “bookish” or “too scientific,” and “sharp” without being overcritical. This model obviously asks too much of the child, but at least it pro¬ vides a model which the highly creative child apparently needs to achieve. 10. GIVE INFORMATION ABOUT THE CREATIVE PROCESS Historically, the creative process has been left pretty much to chance. Psycholo¬ gists surveying the educational scene at all levels have become increasingly convinced that the processes of acquisition, impres¬ sion, intake, and learning skills have tended to dominate over those concerned with production, expression, output, and creation (Patrick, 1955, p. 161). It would seem that educational psychology can do much to reduce the fears of teachers and

40

E.

PAUL

TORRANCE

pupils that their creative abilities are ab¬ sent or negligible by acquainting them with an understanding of the creative process and the conditions under which creativity flourishes. The steps in the creative process seem to be quite well established and the process appears to be essentially the same regard¬ less of the activity. Descriptions of the process have recently been offered by Pat¬ rick (1955), Rossman (1931), Brandwein (1955), Russell (1956), and others. First, there is apparently the sensing of a need or deficiency, random exploration, and a clarification or “pinning down” of the problem. Then ensues a period of prepara¬ tion accompanied by reading, discussing, exploring, formulating many possible solu¬ tions, and critically analyzing these solu¬ tions for advantages and disadvantages. Out of all this activity comes the birth of a new idea—flash of insight, illumination. Finally there is experimentation to evalu¬ ate the most promising solution and the selection and perfection of the idea. The work of Osborn (1957) and the Creative Education Foundation founded by him have done much to promote the idea that individuals and groups can be taught principles which will increase markedly their ability to develop a larger number of creative ideas and a higher quality of ideas. In general, however, these schemes have not yet been submitted to systematic scientific tests. [See Selection 16 for recent research results.] It is our plan to adapt these principles for use with children in the early school years. Thus far, we have attempted to test only two of these (Torrance, 1959a). One of Osborn’s principles is to encourage quantity of pro¬ duction and what he calls “free-wheeling” of ideas without concern for quality, at least temporarily. Encouragement has also been given to use a set of principles to stimulate new ideas. These principles in¬ clude: putting to other uses, adapting, modifying (changing color, motion, sound,

odor, form, shape, etc.), magnification, minification, substituting, rearranging, re¬ versing or changing position, combining, and the like. In our experiment, all of the pupils in two classes at each grade level (one through six) totaling 386 were divided randomly into four experimental groups. Two groups were trained to use the set of principles listed above to aid them in de¬ veloping a larger number of ideas and ideas of higher quality to improve a prod¬ uct such as a toy. The other two groups received no training but otherwise were given the same orientation, including the information that prizes would be awarded for the best performance in each group in each grade. One of the trained and one of the untrained groups was motivated by pointed, verbal instructions to produce as many ideas as possible during an 8-minute period, without concern for quality. The test task was to produce ideas for im¬ proving a toy dog so that it would be “more fun for boys and girls to play with.” At all grade levels, there was a con¬ sistent tendency for the trained subjects to produce more responses, more flexible rec¬ ords, and more clever responses than the untrained ones. The essential relationships are shown in Figure 2. In the first and fifth grades, the differences were not sta¬ tistically significant, except for flexibility in the fifth grade. Although the general effects of the motivation stimulated by the competition seems to have been powerful, the differences due to motivation for quan¬ tity versus quality are inconsistent and except in the second and fourth grades are not statistically significant. These results may be considered en¬ couraging and indicate that pupils in the early school years, with the possible excep¬ tion of the first and fifth grades, can be taught in a short period (about 20 min¬ utes) a set of principles which will enable them to produce a larger number of ideas

Summary of Mean Total Scores of Four Experimental Conditions by Grades Figure 2 for improving an object such as a toy. A longer period of training, more opportu¬ nity for practice, teaching a smaller num¬ ber of principles at the time, and the like would probably produce even more con¬ clusive results and the effects would prob¬ ably hold for a longer length of time. The results suggest, however, that it is need¬ less to urge children in the first three grades to strive for the production of quan¬ tity of ideas. Actually they tend to produce more ideas when told to think of ‘ in¬ teresting, unusual, and clever” ideas, es¬ pecially if they have been trained to apply the principles. With older children and

adults, the stress on quantity may possibly be more justified but there is a need for considerably more experimentation before the issues involved can be resolved. It does seem, however, that it is not necessary to let the production of creative ideas con¬ tinue to be the matter of chance it has tended to be in the past. 11. DISPEL THE SENSE OF AWE OF MASTERPIECES In our attempt to develop an appre¬ ciation of the great creative masterpieces, educators have frequently been guilty of 4i

PP- i-74; Patrick, C., “Whole and Part Relationship in Creative Thought,” American fournal of Psychology, Vol. LIV, 1941, pp. 128-131.

other studies of creativity have also found Wallas’ formulations useful. The stages can be briefly described as follows: 1. Preparation. In “Preparation” the person finds out about the problem situa¬ tion; finds out what the problem is, what the difficulties are, what methods have been tried and have failed, asks what other people have done in the situation, reads up on what has been done before, and talks with people who have worked on it. This would be a very thorough “Prepara¬ tion.” The “Preparation” may consist of the person’s total previous experience with a particular object or problem, with or without special study. This previous ex¬ perience may be large, as with everyday objects. Or, it may be very slight, as with objects or situations experienced only once or twice before in a lifetime. 2. Incubation. “Incubation” is a very peculiar stage in creativity. It consists of the interval between the time when the person has completed “Preparation” and the time when a good idea comes to the person, or, as it is said, “Illumination” occurs. This time interval before a good idea appears is sometimes only a few min¬ utes, sometimes overnight, as when a person “sleeps on a problem,” and may be a week, or even several months. Incubation is an active period according to Wallas and Patrick, although the person does not report much conscious activity. The person seems to be preoccupied and abstracted. Incubation may go on during sleep. Or, the new, good idea may appear as if from nowhere while the person is doing some routine activity. Incubation has been reported by a number of careful observers of the prob¬ lem-solving process. Poincare, the French mathematician, has reported it in his analy¬ sis of the process of solving difficult prob¬ lems.3 In this connection Helmholtz, in speaking of new solutions to problems, 3 Woodworth, R. S., and Schlosberg, H., Experimental Psychology, rev. ed., New York, Holt, 1954, pp. 838-839.

psychological

foundations:

says, “Often they were there in the morn¬ ing when I awoke ... but they liked especially to make their appearance while I was taking an easy walk over wooded hills in sunny weather.” 4 Incubation is an important stage. As will be described later, Osborn’s practical method of producing novel solutions seems to be a way of intentionally and con¬ sciously producing it. 3. Illumination. This is the appear¬ ance of a good idea or good solution to the problem. All of the parts fall into a pattern that looks as if it would be suc¬ cessful. The “Incubation” stage ends when “Illumination” occurs. 4. Verification. This is the process of trying out and testing the good idea that is called the “Illumination.” Osborn s Basic Method Applied Imagination describes a set of

procedures which are effective in produc¬ ing a large number of new solutions for a given problem. While there are many suggestions for facilitating the process, the basic procedure is in two separate stages. Stage 1. The green light stage. The person who is to do the creating is in¬ structed to free himself of all inhibitions and not to be judicial. He is told to be un¬ critical and to reject nothing. He is to be free and to think of anything related to the problem, whether it is practical or not. He is to let his imagination soar away and make a long list of suggested solutions. If more than one person is making sug¬ gestions, no one may be critical during the green light stage. Even clearly imprac¬ tical suggestions should be written down during this stage, since these may eventu¬ ally suggest better solutions. Although it is very difficult for a person to free himself of the fear of being wrong and impractical, it is necessary to do so. The feeling of complete freedom is very new, but stimu¬ lating when experienced. This freedom is the most essential part of Osborn’s proce4 Ibid., p. 838.

Applied.

Imagination

ig$

dure. No effort should be spared to at¬ tain it. Stage 2. The red light stage. Now the person is judicial and judges the sug¬ gestions obtained in Stage 1. Any that are remotely possible or seem even to suggest anything are retained. Each of these is considered further, and finally a few are chosen for testing and trying out.

These two stages, the green light and the red light, have repeatedly been found to be successful. Together they seem to be like Wallas’ stages of “Incuba¬ tion” and “Illumination,” with preliminary “Verification” added. Incubation contains all of the green light and red light stages up to the point that one or two suggestions are selected as worthy of further test. That final selection is similar to “Illumination.” Habit Systems in Relation to New Ideas

From the point of view of most ex¬ perimental psychologists, what a person does and the ideas that he has are depend¬ ent upon his particular experience and life history. All that he has seen and done, and particularly those actions and thoughts most frequently successful, are part of his repertoire, or supply, of thoughts and actions. To a great extent, the person’s individuality consists of his particular pat¬ tern of actions, thoughts, and habitual ways. These habits are very useful because they consist mainly of the successful solu¬ tions to problems that the person has pre¬ viously encountered. When the problem comes up again, the person has a ready habitual solution that has worked in the past. However, when a new problem ap¬ pears, the solutions to earlier problems will not work and a new way must be found. Usually a person confronted with a new problem tries many habitual solutions, that is, solutions that have been frequently used with similar problems. When none of these work, he is faced with the necessity of making a new solution. But here he frequently finds that he is handicapped by

ig6

RICHARD

P.

YOUTZ

his habits. What he can thin\ up and try are mostly those solutions that are habitual.

He tries to do something new, but finds that each thing he does is in a familiar pattern. When he has done familiar things repeatedly with no success, he may with great effort take parts of different habitual acts and combine these parts into a new action. After many new actions, each a novel combination of parts of previous actions, he frequently finds a solution to the new problem. The above description is essentially that of the late Professor Clark L. Hull of Yale University in an article entitled, “The Mechanism of the Assembly of Be¬ havior Segments in Novel Combinations Suitable for Problem Solution.” 5 In Hull’s systematic description (p. 243), intelligent behavior in problem-solving involves “the assembly of habit segments never pre¬ viously associated with each other.” At present our interest is in why it is so rare that we can get the “behavior segments” into “novel combinations.” The difficulty seems to lie in the fact that these novel combinations are composed of “habit segments never previously associated with each other.” Habits stay in their usual form and resist recombination. It is a com¬ mon complaint that “most thinking is stereotyped” and contains nothing new. The person who can “think” is rare, and the practical inventor is still more rare. The difficulty lies in the strength of pre¬ vious habits. William James called habit “the enor¬ mous flywheel of society” that keeps us all going on in about the same direction at about the same rate unless some strong force is applied to speed us up, slow us down, or change our direction. Although the habit flywheel is useful in many situa¬ tions, it is a hindrance when one is trying to produce new solutions. Two of the points from the experi5 Hull, Clark L., in Psychological Re¬ view, Vol. XLIII, 1935, pp. 219-245.

mental findings in Section II should be mentioned briefly in connection with the foregoing discussion. Most of the experi¬ ments are on the finding of solutions to problems of various sorts. It is principally, though not entirely, in problem-solving experiments where the production of nov¬ elty has been most carefully observed. The first point is that when working on problems, experimental subjects exhibit “mechanization,” or “rigidity.” This means that even after continued failure with a particular kind of tentative solution, many subjects continued to try the same thing over and over again. In their attempted solutions they seemed to be too “rigid,” or not “flexible” enough, to try a new ap¬ proach when their usual method failed repeatedly. In terms of their habit struc¬ tures, the habit of this wrong method was so strong, probably because of past suc¬ cesses on other problems, that they could not extinguish the response, or break the habit, very easily. The other point is the difficulty de¬ scribed as “functional fixity.” This oc¬ curred in problems where the subjects were given the means to solve the problems but the solution demanded a new use of a familiar object. “Functional fixity” means that the subjects found it difficult to per¬ ceive the familiar object in a new light, or as possible to use in a new way. Again, previous habits were so strong as to ex¬ clude new combinations of ideas, or habit segments. Osborn s green light stage is a prac¬ tical method for breaking the restrictions of habit and producing the new combina¬ tions of ideas-that bring solutions to new problems. A Suggestion Relating “Incubation’,’ the “Green Light Stage,’’ and the “Assembly of Habit Segments in Novel tions’’

Combina¬

It is suggested that during the “Incu¬ bation” period in creativity, when the prob-

psychological

foundations:

lem was apparently out of mind, the problem-solver, although unaware of it, was trying out many possible solutions. In trying out solutions the problem-solver makes tentative assemblies of habit seg¬ ments never previously combined. Al¬ though we do not know at the present time why the unsuccessful combinations remain unconscious, nor why the more plausible solutions become conscious, it seems likely that this is what occurs. When a plausible solution becomes conscious, it is called “Illumination.” Since not everyone has the ability of a Helmholtz or a Poincare for uncon¬ scious problem-solving, and not everyone has time to wait for incubation to occur, it is useful to have a set of directions for producing novel tentative solutions. It seems likely that Osborn’s instructions in the “Green Light Stage” for producing unusual combinations of ideas, or habit segments, provide such a method. This seems to be a way of making explicit and conscious the events during “Incubation.” People can produce novelty when they are given specific encouragement to free themselves of the restraints and fears of being wrong. Not all of the novel ideas are good or practical. But some are likely to be capable of use or development. The end result is novelty, as in “Incubation” and “Illumination.”

II. EXPERIMENTAL FINDINGS Introduction

This section outlines a number of ex¬ periments which investigate factors influ¬ encing the production of imaginative nov¬ elty. Each part of this section describes a different factor, with one or more experi¬ mental illustrations. In these experimental reports only those portions are summarized which are related to the problem of creative imag¬ ination. The experimenter’s conclusions

Applied Imagination

igj

are described and in some cases further conclusions are made from his data. A. Past Experience

Past experience supplies the habit seg¬ ments which are combined in novel ways to solve the problem or create the new idea. Birch, in the following investigation, suggests the importance of this factor, al¬ though the experimental plan does not per¬ mit one to draw any sure conclusions from the results. Birch, Herbert G., “The Relation of Pre¬ vious Experience to Insightful ProblemSolving,” Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, Vol. XXXVIII, x945> PP- 367-383Problem

To investigate the relation of previous ex¬ perience to the solution of problems requir¬ ing insight. Subjects

Six young chimpanzees, ranging in age from 4 to 5, all had been raised in cap¬ tivity and were relatively un-test wise. Procedure

They were first tested on their ability to use a hoe to secure a piece of food which was out of reach. Two out of the six did so within 30 minutes. Then all were given sticks to play with. Within three days all developed play techniques in which the stick was used as an extension of the arm. They were then retested with the hoe. Results

All solved the problem, using the hoe cor¬ rectly to obtain the food, within 20 seconds. Conclusions

The evidence was interpreted by Birch as demonstrating: 1. That the perception of functional rela¬ tions in a situation is largely dependent upon the previous experience of the animal.

ig8

RICHARD

P.

YOUTZ

2. That insightful problem-solving repre¬ sents the integration into new patterns of activity of previously existent partprocesses developed in the course of the animal’s earlier activities. 3. That in insightful problem-solving pre¬ vious experience provides the materials out of which an adequate pattern of response may be fabricated, rather than the stereotyped problem-solving re¬ sponse itself. B. New Solutions Usually Appear Whole

The manner in which a problem solu¬ tion appears in consciousness has en¬ gendered considerable interest. The fact that it usually appears full-blown and that the mediating stages are not recognized was brought out by Norman R. F. Maier in the following experiment. Catherine Patrick, in her analysis of her studies on artists and poets, observed that a whole idea was more likely to occur than a par¬ tial one in both the incubation and prep¬ aration stages. Maier, N. R. F., “Reasoning in Humans. The Solution of a Problem and Its Appear¬ ance in Consciousness,” Journal of Com¬ parative

and

Physiological

Psychology,

Vol. XI, 1931, pp. 181-194. Problem

To observe the solution of a problem and its appearance in consciousness. Subjects

61 students.

number of suitable objects being present. The four possible solutions were: (1) using a large object to anchor one cord while the other was brought to it, (2) lengthening one cord with an extension cord so that it would reach the other, (3) pulling one cord in with a pole while hold¬ ing the other, and (4) attaching a weight to the center cord and then swinging it to reach the other cord. This last solution was the most difficult and was the one in which the experimenter was interested. After each solution had been mastered the solution was approved and the subject told to solve the problem in still another way until all the solutions were learned. The trials were timed and introspections were recorded. The first three solutions were usually found rather quickly. If the fourth one did not appear after a reason¬ able time, hints were given. The first hint was a brushing of the cord to set it in motion. If this did not help, the experi¬ menter handed the subject a pair of pliers and told him, “With the aid of this and no other object there is another way to solve the problem.” Results

1. 39% solved the problem in the crucial way without hints, 37% solved it after the hints, and 23% failed to solve it at all. 2. Subjects’ behavior and introspections showed that the solution came as a whole in about 75% of the cases. 3. Most of those receiving hints and then solving the problem did not consciously recognize that help had been given them.

Procedure

Discussion

A task was presented which had four pos¬ sible solutions. Two cords were hung from the ceiling and were of such length that they reached the floor. One hung near a wall, the other from the center of the room. The subject was told that he must tie the two cords together. He soon learned that when he held either cord in his hand, he could not reach the other. He was told that he could use anything in the room, a

Before the solution is found there is dis¬ organization. The next experience is that of having an idea. The new organization is suddenly there. It is the dominant ex¬ perience and covers any factor just pre¬ ceding it. Conclusion

“The perception of the solution of a prob¬ lem is like the perceiving of a hidden fig-

psychological

foundations:

ure in a picture-puzzle. In both cases (a) the perception is sudden, (b) there is no conscious intermediate stage, and (c) the relationships of the elements in the final perceptions are different from those which preceded, i.e., changes in meaning are in¬ volved.” Patrick, Catherine, “Whole and Part Rela¬ tionship in Creative Thought,” American Journal of Psychology, Vol. LIV, 1941, pp. 128-131. Problem

To investigate the primacy of the whole over the parts in creative thought, with both artists and poets. Subjects

55 poets and 58 non-poets in the poetry study, and 50 artists and 50 non-artists in the art study. Procedure

In the first investigation, on poets, the poets and non-poets wrote poems after looking at a picture which was presented to them. They were asked to verbalize while looking at the picture and while writing the poem, and their reports were taken down in shorthand. In the second investigation, on artists, the artists and non-artists sketched pictures after reading a given poem. They were likewise asked to verbalize while sketching and their reports taken down in shorthand. The results of the two investigations were then compared. Results

In both studies, four stages of creative thought were found to be present in all subjects: 1. Preparation, when the subject is assem¬ bling or receiving new ideas and asso¬ ciations are shifting rapidly. 2. Incubation, which follows or accom¬ panies preparation. A mood or idea is being incubated when it involuntarily repeats itself while the subject is also

Applied Imagination

199

thinking of other things. It keeps recur¬ ring from time to time. 3. Illumination, which is the crystallization of the idea which was incubating into definite form. 4. Revision or verification, the elaboration or modification of the idea. The thought processes were very similar in all groups, the professional artists and poets and the non-professionals. Almost the same amount of time was taken by all in each group, spent in relatively the same way. The end products were superior for the trained groups. The following whole-part precedence was found. The majority of all subjects had a general idea from the beginning of incu¬ bation, though some had a detailed idea by then. From 45% to 60% of the re¬ marks during this stage showed that the ideas were largely general. The overlap¬ ping of the stages caused some fluctuation. During the illumination stage from 66% to 84% of the remarks showed general ideas. During the revision stage over 90 % of the remarks were on details. Conclusions

Four stages of creative thought are appar¬ ent, although there is much overlapping. The primacy of the whole over the parts is apparent, particularly in the last two stages. When the idea first becomes definite, in the illumination stage, it is a general one. Details are added and changed during revision. In the preparation and incubation stages, either the general or the detail may come first, although the gen¬ eral is more prevalent, but the idea first written or drawn is a general one.

C. Anyone Can Be Creative

Not only experienced artists but 20year-old students show creativity. In the next experiment it was found that the thought processes were similar in the artist and student groups, but the artists were superior in tasks demanding more creative ability. This same result was re-

200

RICHARD

P.

YOUTZ

ported by Patrick in her studies of poets and artists cited in Part B. Welch, L., “Recombination of Ideas in Creative Thinking,” Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. XXX, 1946, pp. 638-643. Problem

To observe the part that the ability to com¬ bine ideas according to plan plays in crea¬ tive thinking. It was assumed that a more than average amount of this ability would be found in artists. Subjects

48 college students at Hunter College and 30 professional artists (including 4 art teachers, 5 layout artists, 5 illustrators, 4 cartoonists, 5 portrait and landscape art¬ ists, and 7 various other artists). The mean age of the college students was 20, with a range from 18 to 29; that of the artists was 37, with a range from 22 to 56. Procedure

Four sub-tests were devised: 1. Recombination of words into meaning¬ ful sentences (10 groups). 2. Making as many letters as possible out of (a) 3 straight lines, (b) 2 straight lines, (c) 1 straight line and 1 semi¬ circle. (3 minute time limit) 3. Connecting a group of 20 words into a grammatically correct and logically re¬ lated story. (3 minute time limit)

from 23 to 56 solutions with an average of 37.6, while for the artists the range was from 39 to 89, with an average of 60.5. It was not merely age, since no signif¬ icant relationship was found between age and creativity. The artists who were rated highest by their employers made the high¬ est scores. Conclusions

1. Although the artists were better, there was considerable overlapping of the two groups. 2. From this experiment it cannot be con¬ cluded what produced the better show¬ ing of the artists. Perhaps the superior creativity of the artists was what had made them become artists. Perhaps the artists were better because of more prac¬ tice.

D. Previous Habits Hinder Present Problem Solution

Although past experience is necessary to provide the behavior segments which are newly combined to solve the problem, past experience can also often inhibit the subject in his efforts by restricting his choice. Much experimental work has been done in this field, especially since Karl Duncker published his findings in 1945. (Duncker, Karl, “On Problem-Solving,” Psychol. Monograph, 270, 1945, whole

4. Constructing as many pieces of furni¬ ture as possible out of 10 blocks, using conventional forms. (5 trials of 2 min¬ utes each)

volume.) Two allied phenomena have been observed, that of mechanization and that of functional fixedness. Mechanization, or rigidity, is the continued use of a method

Results

which was previously successful but which is no longer the most efficient or effective. Functional fixedness is the inability to see a tool in a new use. In both cases the problem-solver is prevented by his past experience from finding the solution.

Parts 2 and 4 differentiated between the two groups, Parts 1 and 3 did not. The critical ratio between the means for the two groups for Part 1 was 0.2 and for Part 3 was 1.1, showing that the groups were not different. For Part 2 the critical ratio was 13.2 and for Part 4 it was 10.2, showing that there was a reliable difference between the two groups. For the college students the range was

Adamson, R. E., “Functional Fixedness as Related to Problem-Solving: A Repetition of Three Experiments,” Journal of Experi¬ mental Psychology, Vol. XLIV, 1952, pp. 288-291.

psychological

foundations:

Problem

To demonstrate that functional fixedness does occur (i.e., that pre-utilization in a dissimilar function inhibits the subject in discovering the new use of the function). Karl Duncker’s experiments are to be re¬ peated in more controlled circumstances with a larger number of subjects. Subjects

57 Psychology I students at Stanford Uni¬ versity, 35 men and 22 women. All were approximately the same age and without much experience with experimental pro¬ cedures. 29 were assigned to the experi¬ mental group and 28 to the control group. Materials

Duncker’s “box,” “gimlet,” and “paper¬ clip” problems. The first is the task of mounting 3 candles vertically on a screen. Among the objects presented are 3 pasteboard boxes, matches and thumbtacks. The solution is to mount one candle on each box by melt¬ ing wax on the box and sticking the candle to it and then tacking the boxes to the screen. The second involves suspending three cords from a board attached to an over¬ head beam. Among the objects available are two screw hooks and a gimlet, the objects from which the cords are hung. The third consists of attaching 4 small black squares to a large white one and then attaching the large square to an eye¬ let in a beam. Among the available objects are paperclips which are used to attach the squares together and one bent into a hook to hang the large square to the eye¬ let. Procedure

All subjects were given the three problems in the same order. For the experimental group one solution object was “burdened” with a prior function. The candles, matches and tacks for the box problem were presented in the boxes. The gimlet was used to start the holes for the screw hooks. The four black squares had to be

Applied Imagination

201

attached to the white one with the paper¬ clips. For the control group, there was no pre-utilization. The boxes were presented empty, the screw holes were already bored, and the black squares were already at¬ tached to the white one. A maximum time of twenty minutes was allowed for each problem. Time to solution and whether the solution was found were measures of functional fixed¬ ness. Results

Box problem: 86% of the control group solved it while only 41% of the experi¬ mental group did. 78% of the control group solved it in time under that of the median of the combined groups, while only 24% of the experimental group did so. On the gimlet and paperclip prob¬ lems, correctness of solution could not be used as a measure, since all subjects solved the paperclip problem and all but three solved the gimlet problem. So time to solu¬ tion was used. For the gimlet problem (eliminating the three who failed to solve it) the mean time to solution for the con¬ trol group was 144.0 seconds as compared to 246.6 seconds for the experimental group. For the paperclip problem, the mean time to solution was 63.0 seconds for the control group as compared to 107.9 seconds for the experimental group. Both differences were statistically significant. Conclusion

Duncker’s results were confirmed. Func¬ tional fixedness was shown to result from the pre-utilization of solution objects. Birch, H. G., and Rabinowitz, H. S., “The Negative Effect of Previous Experience on Productive Thinking,” Journal of Experi¬ mental Psychology, Vol. XLI, 1951, pp. 121-125. Problem

To investigate the effects of specific ex¬ perience with objects in unrelated situa¬ tions upon their utilizability as problem¬ solving instruments.

202

RICHARD

P.

YOUTZ

Subjects

Conclusion

25 students at City College in New York City.

Specific prior experience limited the per¬ ception of object properties and made the experienced material less available as a problem-solving tool.

Materials

The Maier two-cord problem, in which two cords suspended from the ceiling are to be tied together. A weight must be at¬ tached to one so that it will act as a pen¬ dulum and swing over to a position in which it can be caught and tied to the other. The two objects which were avail¬ able as the weight were an electric relay and an electric switch. Procedure

The students were divided into 3 groups designated as C, S, and R. The C group was the control group (6 students) and was given the problem immediately. The S group (9 students) was asked to first complete an electrical circuit using a switch and was then given the problem. The R group was asked to complete an electrical circuit using a relay and then asked to solve the problem. If the subject did not seem to be getting the solution after 8 minutes, the examiner gave a hint by brushing against the strings and setting them in motion. After the solution, all were asked why they chose the object they had used as the weight. Results

The control subjects chose equally between the relay and the switch. The subjects who had used the relay previously all used the switch to solve the problem, and those who had used the switch previously used the relay in 7 out of 9 cases. So, in 17 out of 19 cases, the object not previously used was utilized as the problem-solving tool. When asked why they had chosen the object they did, the subjects provided rather defensive reasons (i.e., “Anyone can see this is the better one to use.” “This one was obviously much better.”). Since there were the same reasons directed at both objects, it was obviously a rationalization rather than a direct reason.

Luchins, A. S., “Mechanization in Prob¬ lem-Solving. The Effect of Einstellung,” Psychological Monograph, Vol. LIV, 1942, whole #248. Problem

Several hypotheses were postulated for in¬ vestigation. 1. After several problems which are solv¬ able by only one method have been solved by a person, will a similar prob¬ lem be solved by the same method, even if a better solution is available? (This is “mechanization” or “rigidity.”) 2. Will this blinding effect of Einstellung or “set” be of different strengths in groups that differ in educational level, age, etc.? 3. If means to save the subjects from blind¬ ness (telling the subjects, “Don’t Be Blind”) are introduced, will they work? Materials

A series of problems involving water jars were worked out, similar to those used by Zener and Duncker. In this sort of prob¬ lem, now widely known as “water-jar” problems, the subject is told that he should measure out a certain number of units of water. In one simple problem the subject is told that he has a large tank full of water, a 3-unit jar, and a 5-unit jar. He is to measure out 2 units. The solution is: to fill the 5-unit jar from the tank, fill the 3-unit jar from the 5-unit jar, leaving 2 units in the 5-unit jar. The solution may be written 5 — 3 = 2. In the problems be¬ low, the sample problem (No. 1) has the solution, 29 — 3 — 3 — 3 = 20. The first “set producing” problem (No. 2) has the solution 127 — 21 — 3 — 3 — 100, since one first fills the B-jar and from it fills the A-jar and then fills the C-jar twice (after

psychological

foundations:

emptying it, of course). This leaves the de¬ sired amount in the B-jar. This solution to problem No. 2 uses the jars in the follow¬ ing way “B-jar minus A-jar minus C-jar twice gives the required amount of water.” This solution can be written using only the letters of the jars: B — A — 2C = re¬ quired amount. The problems used are shown below. Problem No.

Kind

4. Then the two halves of the experimental group were reassembled. The first two problems were done and the method Given the f olio wing empty jars as measures, A 29

Sample

2.

21

4-

Set producing Set producing Set producing

56.

Set producing Set producing

9 20

7• 8.

Crucial 1 Crucial 2

910. 11.

B 3 127 163

14 18

43 42

20 3

100

25 10

99 5 21

6 4

23 15

49 39

3 3

Extinction

28

76

3

Crucial 3 Crucial 4

18

48

N

36

4 8

Procedure

1. Each group tested was divided into a control and an experimental group. 2. The controls were given problems 1 and 2, then problems 7, 8, 9, 10, and n. 3. The experimental group was divided approximately in half and one group was told, “Don’t Be Blind” and told to write this on their papers to make them aware of the fact that caution is needed,

Obtain the required

C

59

Problems 2 through 6 are solvable by the formula B — A — 2C (The B-jar is filled, from it the A-jar is filled once and the C-jar is filled twice, leaving the correct amount in the B-jar). These five similar problems produce the “set” and the “mechanization.” Problems 7 through 11 test for the presence of the “set” and the “mechanization.” Problems 7 and 8 are also solvable by this method, but also by a shorter method using only two jars, A and C. Problem 9 is solvable only by the method A minus C. Problems 10 and 11 can be solved by either method.

203

to be awake, so as “not to act like a blind person who can’t see what he is doing.” The other half of the experi¬ mental group we may call the “plain experimental group.” They were not told, “Don’t Be Blind.”

I.

3-

Applied Imagination

31 20 18 25 22 6

verbalized (B — A — 2C). Then they were given the rest of the problems, numbers 3 through xi. The problems were put on the blackboard at intervals of 2% minutes (or oftener if the sub¬ jects had required less time on the second problem). All of the problems were done in order. Subjects

In the main part of the experiment, 2709 subjects were run. Of these, 222 were stu¬ dents at Brooklyn College; 913 were adults attending Adult Education Courses (di¬ vided into 305 academic high school stu¬ dents, 442 high school graduates, and 166 who had not attended high school); 1259 were pupils in the Brooklyn Public School system; 40 were students in a private ele¬ mentary school; and 275 were students at New York University, mainly teachers and administrators of New York City schools. Results

1. With every group tested, a strong Einstellung (set) effect was found. This

204

RICHARD

P.

YOUTZ

lem (9) to a very great degree. In most of the groups tested, from 50 % to 90 % failed to solve it within the usual time limit of 2/2 minutes. This is “mecha¬ nization” or “rigidity,” since in Prob¬ lem No. 9, all the subject had to see was that 28 — 3 = 25. Many jailed to see this in the allotted time. (See Table of Results.)

was shown by the fact that the first two crucial problems (7 and 8) were solved by the longer (B — A — 2C) method by over 75% of the plain experimental subjects in half the groups tested and by at least 50% of them in every case. 2. This half of the experimental group also failed to solve the extinction prob¬

TABLE OF RESULTS

(Adapted from Luchins’ Table 8) Per cents failure to solve Problem Nine—“Mechanization”

Name of Groups

Control Group

“Set” Group

Brooklyn College (N =: 222) College Sen. 1

0%

61%

29%

Coll. Coll. Coll. Coll.

Sen. 2 Sen. 3 Jr. 1 Jr. 2

Coll. Fr. 1 Adult Education (N — 913) H.S. Sen. 1 ITS. Sen. 2 H.S. Ad. 1 H.S. Ad. 2 H.S. Ad. 3

Public School, Elementary (N = 1259) P.S. A4 P.S. A5 P.S. A6 P.S. B4 P.S.B5 P.S. B6 P.S. C4 P.S. C5 P.S. C6

50

25 *7 33 29

0

67

47

0

68 80

60 76

62

28

0 0 0

59 64 73 70

43 43 40 47

0

80

5°

0

83

57

84

67

87 60 66 64

87 78

17 12 0 9 0

0 IX

14 7

Private School, Elementary (N = 4o) N.Y. University students (N = 275) N.Y.U. 1 N.Y.U. 2 N.Y.U. 3

Group

27 58 70

H.S. Ad. 4 H.S. Ad. 5 P.S. Ad. 1 P.S. Ad. 2

DBB (Don’t Be Blind)

0 5

76 68

65 34 76 69

55 39

55 39

57

37

65 81

56

53

45 38

psychological

foundations:

3. A similar percentage showed set effects in solving the crucial problems (io and 11) after the extinction problem. 4- The “Don’t Be Blind” admonition les¬ sened the “set” effect in almost all groups. However, the percentage of problems 7 and 8 solved by the longer “set” method was still over 50% in most cases. The admonition did lessen the percentage of failure on Problem 9 considerably. This group also showed fewer “set” responses to the crucial problems (10 and n) which followed the extinction problem than did the plain experimental group.

Applied Imagination

205

judicial process should be reserved until after the tentative solutions have been achieved, since unsatisfactory results will be discouraging and this stress may inhibit any further progress in thinking up new ideas. Combs, A., and Taylor, C., “The Effect of the Perception of Mild Degrees of Threat on Performance,” ]ournal of Ab¬ normal and Social Psychology, Vol. XLVII, 1952, pp. 420-424. Problem

5. The control groups solved the crucial problems (7, 8, 10, and n) by the shorter method (using A and C) in all but a few cases in the public school group.

To test the prediction that the introduction of a mild degree of personal threat in the course of the solution of a simple task will result in an increase of time required to complete the task and an increase of errors in performance.

6. Analysis of the results by group showed little or no relationship of age, educa¬ tional level or IQ to the results.

Subjects

Conclusions

1. The “mechanization” (or “rigidity”) effect, here called “Einstellung” and “set” effect, is very widespread. It ap¬ pears in persons of widely varying ages, educational levels, and ability levels. 2. The admonition “Don’t Be Blind” re¬ duced the “mechanization” effect to some extent in all groups. Apparently, advice and urging can lessen this hin¬ drance to creative understanding. 3. Some individuals in every group showed no “set” effect. Perhaps train¬ ing can lessen the hindering effect of “mechanization.” (It seems unlikely that this tendency is hereditary.)

E. Factors Increasing “Functional Fixedness’’ and “Rigidity’’

A number of factors have been found to increase functional fixedness and rigid¬ ity. Among the most influential of these is stress or frustration, which strongly in¬ creases it. These experimental findings support Osborn’s contention that the

50 volunteer students from advanced undergraduate psychology courses at Syr¬ acuse University. 27 men and 23 women. Materials

Coded sentences printed in capital letters on 3-by-5 cards. 17 sentences were neutral. (Example: Most gardens are more damp in spring.) Ten were threat-provoking (in the judgment of the experimenters). (Ex¬ amples: My family do not respect my judgment. It is stupid to believe there is a God. I said my mother is a dirty whore.) Procedure

The code was learned to the satisfaction of the subject, then the code card was re¬ moved. Six neutral cards were presented, then the neutral and threatening sentences were alternated. Rest periods were allowed whenever desired. Time was taken on a stop-watch and recorded on a sheet. Each subject was tested separately. To test that sentences were only mildly threatening, the experimenters in¬ troduced a more personal threat by saying, before a neutral sentence (which was then counted as a threatening sentence), one of these sentences:

206

RICHARD

P .

YOUTZ

1. “You aren’t concentrating, I’m afraid. You can do better than this.” (Capabil¬ ity threat) 2. “Can’t you do it a little faster?” (Time threat) Results

In every instance but one, more time was required on the threatening sentences. The mean time in seconds for the threatening sentences was 94.9 as compared to 87.6 for the non-threat ones. With only one exception, more errors were made under threat. The mean of errors for the non-threat sentences was 1.17 while it was 1.82 for the threat sentences. The five sentences producing greatest time and errors, arranged in decreasing magnitude, were: 1. A non-threat sentence preceded by the “time threat.” 2. “My family do not respect my judg¬ ment.”

chotherapy, education, and social action cannot be neglected.

Lazarus, R. S., and Eriksen, C. W., “Psy¬ chological Stress and Its Personality Cor¬ relates: Part I. The Effects of Failure Stress upon Skilled Performance,” Journal of Experimental Psychology, Vol. XLIII, 1952, pp. 100-105. Problem

To test the effect of failure stress on speed and accuracy of performance. Subjects

188 students, one group at Johns Hopkins engineering school and one at Western Maryland College. Their results were so similar that the results were combined for analysis. They were divided into 115 ex¬ perimental subjects and 73 controls, roughly equated in terms of college grade point averages.

3. “Now on a date I belch quite loudly.”

Procedure

4. A non-threat sentence preceded by the “capability threat.”

All subjects were told they were partici¬ pating in an evaluation program, the re¬ sults of which would go on their record. It was emphasized that the intelligence test was an excellent predictor of college success and they were exhorted to do well since this information would serve their faculty concerning their status in school. An extended version of Form 1 of the Wechsler-Bellevue digit-symbol subtest was administered, followed by a Group Ror¬ schach. Then the experimenter read off a list of names (the control group), instruct¬ ing them to go to another room. The experimental group was then told severely that they had done very poorly in the original digit-symbol test. The serious¬ ness of this was reaffirmed and they were told that another administration would give greater certainty of their true ability and they were thus being given one more chance. Form 2 of the subtest was then given. At four intervals during the testing the experimenter called out false norms which would be above possible achieve¬ ment. Any protest was met with “Quiet.”

5. “It is stupid to believe there is a God.” Discussion

The higher relative positions of the ex¬ ternal threat sentences seem to bear out the prediction that such threats are greater in strength and that the other sentences were only mildly threatening. One threat sentence (“I said that my mother is a dirty whore.”) proved not to be threatening at all. In fact, most subjects laughed, proving that threat is a personal and perceived characteristic, irrespective of what the outside observer may think of the situation. Conclusions

The prediction of the effect of mild threat on performance seems amply demonstrated by the results of this experiment. If even a mild degree of threat can markedly affect the adequacy of behavior, the implications of such a principle for psy¬

psychological foundations: Applied, Imagination

The control group was told that they had done well, but it was important to be sure their ability had been truly measured. They were told that another measure would be taken, to be averaged with the first. Form 2 was given. Four interrup¬ tions were made, but the announced norms were well within the performance of the subjects, so were supportive. The same time was allowed as for the experimental group. At the end, both groups were told the true nature of the experiment, and its purposes and implications were discussed. Results On Form 2, the experimental group showed an increase in errors, while the control group showed a decrease. Both groups showed a slight decrement in speed, but individuals who made many more errors on the second testing than they had on the first had a tendency to increase in speed. Variation was greatly increased by stress, as measured by the standard devia¬ tion. Less variance was found in the con¬ trols on Test 2 than they had shown in Test 1, while far more variance was found in the experimental subjects. The correlations between the two tests differed considerably between the two groups. The correlation of total scores was .645 for the experimental subjects as com¬ pared to .901 for the control subjects. Cor¬ relation of error scores on the two tests was +.183 for experimental subjects and — .094 for controls. Differences were found between stu¬ dents with high and low grade point aver¬ ages. The subjects with high academic standing did significantly better under stress than those in the low group. Conclusions 1. Individuals vary greatly in their re¬ actions to stress. 2. Errors increased under stress, but were somewhat compensated for by an in¬ crease in speed. 3. Individuals with high academic grades tended to be less affected by stress.

207

Mohsin, S. M., “Effect of Frustration on Problem-Solving Behavior,” journal of Ab¬ normal and Social Psychology, Vol.

XLIX, 1954, pp. 152-155. Problem To determine the effect of frustration on one task on performance in the imme¬ diately following task. Subjects 20 undergraduate students of psychology at the University of Patna, Bihar, India. Procedure All were given the Passalong Test (a problem-solving test), then divided into two groups equated on the basis of their scores. After four months they were re¬ called for the second part of the test. The control group was given the task of writing two Thematic Apperception Test stories while the experimental group was being frustrated. The frustration situ¬ ation was a block-tapping test in which the series was too long to be reproduced. A false set of norms was on the table and the experimenter recorded a score for each sequence far below these norms, while keeping a true record on a card under the table. The experimenter also expressed his concern about the failures and com¬ pared them with the norms several times. Finally, with disgust and pity, the blocks were removed at the end of 15 minutes. Then both groups were retested on the Passalong Test Problems IV through VII. The other problems were not given be¬ cause they had been all passed or all failed on the original testing. All were asked whether they remembered this test, how they felt they had done, and the experi¬ mental subjects were asked whether the frustrating problems had occurred to them while they did this test and how they had felt about them. Results Both groups gained significantly on the retest. The control group showed a steady increase despite the increasing difficulty of

-\\>'

RICH UP

r .

VOVT7

the problems, which get dcrinitelv harder

McK mey, F.. ”Ce ta 11 notional Fm its

.it test VII. l'he experimental group showed a great.--. gain on the ■.>: prob

and Ftticieney." o' (befV\ . i.'.'og1. Yol. IX. to;;, no. toi no.

Icons than the control group. but at test

VII thej fell ofl

.-b On this problem

the controls reduced their time b\ an average ot oo swr.ds over their initial

performance, while the experimental sub ■nets :evinced theirs hv on'.\ is seccn.is.

• o asce

t the effects ot an u i easonable • id a suggestion ot intellectual intend i:\ on '.earning and etfieienev. Vm vers

1 tie control group's failure to improve on

me ms: test (TV ) me. Initial pe . nance may he attributable to the ncod to warm up. The experimental group had alread.v been in the test situation and were nai -. d up. Also they were highly motivated, to try this test which was associated with success and provided a release from the frustrating situation. Success on the first problem mereased motivation tor them still further. At test VII the progressive gain underwent a reversal for the ex¬ perimental subjects, but not for the con¬ trols L'his is attributed to due carry-over effect of frustration. Analysis of the data on the experimetiral subiects and trie experimenter's petes on their behavior provide further in¬ formation. Four of the subiects showed much more frustration in their behavior in the frustrating situation and thev did the most iwrtv on test \ II. showing no re¬ duction in time over initial performance and some gain. 1 he other six snowed .ess trustration cliect c.urine the trustrat-.ng ex¬ perience and a.l showed some reduction of time on test MI. Only one experimental subject reported that he thought of the frustrating problems « hi . doing me Pass a.or.g Test; .ill others reported complete absorption in the new test.

Interference was not noticeable in all sub¬ iects. The sub-ects affected were those who .1. xx.;c to be most stror.g. v frustrated. This is consistent with the general findings regarding individual differences in re¬ sponse to ego threat.

m-Psychology 1 students at the University ot Chicago.

., -g stylus maze .. .-d to two petmet consecutive runs, it nonsense svllab.es nieiiioriced bv the anticipation method. using a Hull auto¬ matic electric memory drum, learned to two perfect repetitions. A ruler-type steadiness tester with a burner ■ • - - ' • - o ess uns must be .. '' mutiphca: u e ns to be sobed. '

Fnve.ri.re

I he sub’ects were divided into three groups Except .. t *e disc mm. ference. all \\ere . e.ucd . re sa re V . ■ subiect was run through ino. , the tom tests we:? done on different davs. the he m - a ed i i a counterba a iced cm ect r q efeet d. e to post ■ - - • - task and also to ascerta ■ ufutmr tn.e ettect of the experimental vrem.i.iens tended to change during the four davs. Tn.e three conditions under which the different groups worked were: i. Cmumm The subjee :s were given the instructions for each tasN wuh no mention of rime.

p ■' - ■Subiects were given t..e instructions and told. “At the end or each minute an automatic dock will buret. ’

5'

•' far.-m'vIn addition to ^emg told that the burner would go off. sup-ivts were a.so told. “You should not rake over six minutes to master this

nrc ;; o l o o; c ao ; c •. ■ \,oo.e for j pervon ..gene/: A* *..-.« iapve of ooer .4 r.-.g

tatk 7 :.~t it t of a erage \

Mould it happen that you have not f.o;toed \r> ha'.-: £0 jibed/*

go aoea.d

.no.

70,

A* the *xA 'A *he fourth ported aii

wbftcu were inked to write out what "y/mr or. .0 o.t .-.-...vi 0 g too ezper:r.. ' . . 4: /.da’ to y/r.te 7 her. ear..' /.at a teed to v. r .te d// /.o if aoy’o.og e ■ or oar; iogt of or v C.tg*v% etc.

Rendu Jr. iearo.og aod v.errort -.00/ 00 a tigo.oea.-.’ .'..'.reave from Com; ' or. ; to 3 .0 4.. 04000 400 fro00 Coc o. tor. ; to 2 .0 *.-.e 04vo of vo - *.0.0 maze aod * -0 0 r.o .. •. 0. .04 - . 0.0 ;. r 00.0.00 0 ^

J

;,> act.

to meet the production requirements. This led me to check the furnace temperature, and as I suspected from his statement, the temperature was 2750 F higher than re¬ quired for such operations. Thus I de¬ signed a furnace that operated at the lower temperature and met production require¬ ments at lower cost.

At another time I was engaged to design a new forge furnace (5). Accord¬ ingly I said to the foreman “If you can tell me of any complaints that you get on the present furnace, I can try to overcome the difficulty in my new design.” He said he had no complaints and refused to an¬ swer any other questions because he was too busy.

6. Degree of definition versus degree of preciseness. Although three methods of problem-solving have been discussed in this paper, it must be borne in mind that any division along these lines must be arbitrary. Instead of only three degrees of defining a problem, there must exist an entire scale of problem definition extend¬ ing from the most analytical definition to the one of least preciseness. The methods presented herein were assumed to represent the two extremes and a third point some¬ where near half-way between them. The value in considering degree of definition lies in the fact that in any phase of development or research we are most likely to begin with problems for which our experience can offer no solutions. As the problem progresses toward a specific solution, the more precisely can it be de¬ fined and the more can our experience suggest the suitable, specific solution from this definition.

It appeared that I had two alternatives for further action. One, I could conduct a series of time-consuming and expensive tests on the furnace; or two, I could persist in trying to question the foreman. The second alternative might certainly be the cheaper and less time-consuming but it involved considering the foreman’s refusal to cooperate. I had to consider whether he was afraid of new ideas; if he would be more likely to give me the information during lunch, when he is not busy; whether he would respond to praise or bribe; and so on. To investigate all these possibilities might consume more time than carrying out an extensive test on the present furnace. Inasmuch as I was not retained on a time basis, but rather for a completed de¬ sign, I was interested in the quickest and most effective way of acquiring the infor¬ mation and I began to review the ap¬ proaches I had. In view of the fact that I failed when asking the foreman directly what I wanted to know, the approach “when the direct way fails, try the oppo¬ site” seemed to apply. Therefore I asked the foreman why he thought the present furnace was good. He explained and em¬ phasized that this furnace is “hot” enough

REFERENCES 1.

2.

3. 4.

5.

w. j., The Twelve Rules for Straight Tlimiting, New York, Harper & Bros., 1947. killeffer, d. h., The Genius of Industrial Research, New York, Reinhold Publishing Company, 1948. kogan, zuce, Essentials in Problem Solv¬ ing, Chicago, 1951. [See Appendix B.] langmuir, irving. Phenomena, Atoms & Molecules, New York, Philosophical Li¬ brary, 1950. Approaches, Vol. I, 1952, Creative Think¬ ing Institute, Chicago. reilly,

Selection 24 SIDNEY J. PARNES

DO YOU REALLY UNDERSTAND BRAINSTORMING?

during the late

1950’s there occurred a wave of criticism and reaction

in the press to the concept of “brainstorming.” Invariably this criticism was directed at group brainstorming. As a matter of fact, in the popular mind the notion did not exist of individuals using the deferred judg¬ ment principle upon which brainstorming is based. In this article, which was first published in Adult Leadership, April 1959, under the tide “This Is Brainstorming” the author attempts to clarify the misunder¬ standing and answer the objections to brainstorming. Readers should note the distinctions between brainstorming (a part) and creative problem¬ solving (the whole), and between a brainstorming group session and conventional group sessions. In his capacity as director of creative education at the University of Buffalo, the author has taught and used brainstorming’s deferred judgment principle extensively both as an individual method and as a group procedure. He has also conducted a series of research studies regarding the principle.

283

284

SIDNEY

J,

PARNES

The essence of brainstorming’s prin¬ ciple of deferred judgment is to allow a given period of time for listing all the ideas that come to one’s mind regarding a problem, without judging them in any way. One is to forget about the quality of the ideas entirely. Quantity only is stressed. One is urged to combine or mod¬ ify any of the ideas which have already been listed in order to produce additional ideas. Quantity and freedom of expres¬ sion without evaluation are the key points. Evaluation of the ideas is then performed at a later time. Having worked full time for the past four years with brainstorming and crea¬ tive thinking programs, I observe in my own thinking how much more meaning¬ ful the word “brainstorming” has become. To me the word “brainstorming” means just as much a way of individual thinking (segregating the creative and judicial qual¬ ities of one s mind) as it does a group methodology (which is the more common and popular connotation). However, to prevent confusion in terminology, we now refer to the basic principle as that of de¬ ferred judgment (postponing judgment during idea-finding stages of problem¬ solving). When a gioup follows this prin¬ ciple, the procedure is known as brain¬ storming.

AN INDIVIDUAL METHOD

Most people who misunderstand the deferred judgment principle consider only its group application, without giving cog¬ nizance to the fact that the principle un¬ derlying it can be even more important in individual thinking. A recent scien¬ tific investigation at the University of Buffalo showed that individuals working independently on certain creative problem¬ solving tasks averaged from 23 per cent to 177 per cent more good quality solu¬ tions when following the deferred judg¬

ment principle than when told to “pro¬ duce only good ideas.” Dr. Richard P. Youtz, Columbia psy¬ chologist, in a report1 discussing pertinent research in experimental psychology, makes the following statements regarding the mental and emotional states encour¬ aged by deferment of judgment during idea production: “These experimental findings support Osborn’s contention that the judicial proc¬ ess should be reserved until after the ten¬ tative solutions have been achieved, since unsatisfactory results will be discouraging and this stress may inhibit any further progress in thinking up new ideas.” Dr. Youtz further emphasizes that “people can produce novelty when they are given specific encouragement to free themselves of the restraints and fears of being wrong!” He also points out that the deferred judgment principle is a practical one for overcoming the mental blocks pro¬ duced by habit and past experience, thus allowing the derivation of novel solutions to problems.

BRAINSTORMING GROUPS

Referring now to the use of the prin¬ ciple of deferred judgment in groups, brainstorming, there are those who are op¬ posed to this procedure simply because they consider it a group method, and because they are opposed to all group problem¬ solving procedures. This is an age-old de¬ bate. A recent publication by Dr. Irving Lorge and his associates at Columbia Uni¬ versity gives thorough treatment of this subject." Suffice it to say that repeated studies in group dynamics have demon¬ strated superior thinking ability of an 1 See Selection 17. 2 Lorge, Irving, et al„ “A Survey of Stud¬ ies Contrasting the Quality of Group Per¬ formance and Individual Performance, 1920— 1957>” Psychological Bulletin, Vol. LV, No.

6, November 1958, pp. 337-372.

DO

YOU

REALLY

UNDERSTAND

BRAINSTORMING?

285

average group over an average single in¬ dividual, both in problems involving crea¬ tive ability, judgment, or both. Dr. R. L. Thorndike has found, moreover, that as the range of possible responses increases, the superiority of the group over the in-

the other two persons, who have not had the same experience. Also, there are certain areas that are common to person A and person B, but unique to person C, and so on with each other pair. Whenever you put a group of people

dividual increases.3 Most creative problems have multitudinous possible responses. The configuration shown in the illustration is a visual representation of the effect of group approaches to problem¬ solving. The three circles to the left repre¬ sent three separate individuals with varied backgrounds and experiences. Each is nat¬

together, this type of result occurs. Each one in the group brings with him a tre¬ mendous background of facts and experi¬ ences which no one else in the group possesses. It often humbles one to hear the ideas that others have developed—ideas that the first person had never conceived.

urally different from the other. Now if we look at the three circles as they are placed together at the right, you will notice that there is one element com¬ mon to all three. This is an element of experience or background that all three persons possess. Perhaps, for example, they all possess the ability to speak English cor¬ rectly. You will notice, however, that there is a large portion of each person’s circle that remains outside of the other two. This represents a tremendous background (built up through a lifetime) that is unique to

KALEIDOSCOPIC MIND

3 Thorndike, R. L., “On What Type of Task Will a Group Do Well?”, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. XXXIII, 1938, pp. 408-412.

Let us consider the stimulation of a group in another way: When you look into a kaleidoscope, you see a pattern. If you manipulate the drum of the kaleido¬ scope, you begin to get countless patterns. If you then add a new piece of crystal to the kaleidoscope, and hold the drum still, you see a slightly different pattern. Now if you manipulate the drum, with the new stone included, you have a tre¬ mendous number of new possible patterns. The mind operates in a very similar way. If you “look into the brain,” you find millions of bits of knowledge and experience stored there, much like infor-

286

SIDNEY

J .

PARNES

mation stored in the memory drum of a computor. If you manipulate, “turn on the computer,” you get countless “patterns”— ideas from combination and recombination of the existing elements. If you add a new fact or experience, as in adding a new piece of crystal to the kaleidoscope, you get one new pattern; however, as soon as you begin to manipulate, com¬ bining and rearranging the new fact with the old, you have a great number of new possible patterns of ideas. As we take new concepts into our minds in reading, observing, listening, or any use of our senses, we are increasing the number of “pieces in the kaleidoscope” available for manipulation. In conven¬ tional group conferences, however, we frequently do not allow for effective ma¬ nipulation of the knowledge in the com¬ bined “mental libraries” of the participants. In practically every conference, judgment predominates. Under such conditions the usual conferee may think of an idea that might help solve the problem under con¬ sideration; but then he thinks of some reason why it will not work. So he keeps the idea buried in his bosom. Or if he does decide to offer the idea, another member of the group will find fault with it. The other person “freezes” the idea into a rigid pattern instead of manipu¬ lating it in his mind in order to create valuable new permutations. Judgment in a problem-solving conference causes so many debates and side discussions that a 30-minute meeting of this type frequently results in few, if any, possible solutions. In an atmosphere of deferred judg¬ ment, however, the drum of the kaleido¬ scope is turning constantly; in other words, ideas and suggestions trigger associations and modifications in other conferees' minds. This enables a great number of possibilities to be produced in a short time. Afterwards the judicial powers of the mind may be turned towards screening and de¬ veloping the most likely ideas.

In a brainstorming session we find that many of our memory cells which were long unused are stimulated by as¬ sociations with the current thoughts. Thus new configurations are developed; hence new ideas, new leads to solution of our problems. An interesting experiment points out the remarkable capacity of our minds to store information as against its relative inability under normal conditions to re¬ trieve that information. Dr. Lawrence Kubie, in his book, Neurotic Distortion of the Creative Process,'1 tells of research where individuals were placed in a strange room for a few minutes. After they left the room, they were asked to list all the items that they had seen there. The aver¬ age person listed 20-30 items. After being placed under hypnosis, however, the same individuals then listed about 200 more items. Thus we have much more informa¬ tion than we realize, if we can only “shake it loose.” Brainstorming sessions help to do just that.

GROUPS NEITHER GOOD NOR BAD

It seems to me that the overemphasis in recent history on group procedures rather than individual effectiveness has now caused too strong a reaction in the opposite direction, as evidenced in many recent ar¬ ticles and in current books such as David Riesman’s The Lonely Crowd and William Whyte’s The Organization Man. The pen¬ dulum has now swung to the other ex¬ treme of tending to ignore group value in favor of complete emphasis on individual effort. It is too bad we are inclined to be either-or -in most of our viewpoints, rather than to look for the “degree to which an idea adds to our values. We have all been to particular meet¬ ings, conferences, and brainstorming ses¬ sions which were a complete waste of time, 4 Kubie, Lawrence S., Neurotic Distor¬ tion of the Creative Process, University of Kansas Press, Lawrence, 1958.

DO

YOU

REALLY

UNDERSTAND

but this does not make the method itself ineffective. Condemning group thinking on the basis of ineffectively conducted ses¬ sions is like condemning a good tool that is improperly used, instead of condemning the user. A Stradivarius in the hands of an amateur would be a very disappointing in¬ strument. The same may be true for brain¬ storming. But in the hands of a skillful, well-trained person, brainstorming, like the Stradivarius, can produce wonderful results. The countless case studies from all over the world by people who have been properly using brainstorming attest well to this fact.5 In a recently published book, The Next Hundred Years,6 a geochemist, a biochemist, and a psychologist make this statement: “We are beginning to develop pro¬ cedures and techniques that help to stimu¬ late creativity in individuals, in groups, and in companies. There is, for example, the technique known as ‘Brainstorming.’ In this procedure a group meets under conditions designed to make it easy for its members to express their ideas without fear of ridicule or criticism. It is quite effective in increasing the output of new ideas from people brought together for the purpose. Brainstorming has been used successfully in advertising, sales, produc¬ tion, and management. It can be used with equal effectiveness in research and develop¬ ment, and in fact in any activity in which the generation of new or different ideas is the goal.” COUNTERACTS CONFORMITY

I might add, regarding group brain¬ storming specifically, that it strikes out at 5 Pleuthner, Willard A., “Recent Results from Group Brainstorming,” Creative Educa¬ tion Foundation, Buffalo, N.Y., 1958. 6 Brown, Harrison; Bonner, James; and Weir, John, The Next Hundred Years, New York, The Viking Press, 1957.

BRAINSTORMING?

2S7

many of the very criticisms of the conven¬ tional group meeting. For example, the “no judgment, free-wheeling” atmosphere counteracts the tremendous pressure for conformity usually exerted in a group. People are encouraged to offer any ideas they may have, no matter how unconven¬ tional. Using Dr. B. F. Skinner’s termi¬ nology,' brainstorming provides reinforce¬ ment for creative behavior,—for the pro¬ duction of creative ideas; thus brainstorm¬ ing provides the psychological safety that is helpful in freeing group members from their conformity complexes. University of Pittsburgh psychologist Dr. Jack Matthews, observing brainstorm¬ ing groups in acdon at one of the creative problem-solving institutes, has observed that many of the mental blocks that inter¬ fere with successful conference procedure can be minimized by four rules of brain¬ storming, which he listed as (1) adverse criticism is taboo; (2) freewheeling is wel¬ comed; (3) quantity is wanted; and (4) combination and improvement are sought. Dr. Matthews also touched on another important consideration implicit in group brainstorming when he stated: “If we feel that there is a basic respect that we must have for the human personality, that in¬ dividuals, as individuals, are worthwhile and have something to contribute, then we should try to make it possible for them to contribute what they’ve got. Why do you want to brainstorm? Why do you want to get ideas from this group of peo¬ ple unless you’ve got some fundamental faith in the fact that these people have got something to contribute?” 8 Too many conventional group meet¬ ings fail to allow the individual to con¬ tribute and demonstrate his potential. The morale effects of group brainstorming can sometimes be as important as the ideas produced. 7 Skinner, B. F., Science and Human Behavior, New York, Macmillan, 1953. 8 See Selection 13.

288

SIDNEY

J .

PARNES

MISUSING BRAINSTORMING

Group brainstorming is often mis¬ understood because it is used by many people in a situation which is really a con¬ ventional conference, and only a confer¬ ence. In other words, the session develops as a pooling of knowledge and experience of the various members. (In an inexperi¬ enced brainstorming group this is often the case.) Someone looks at the production and claims there is very little evidence of imaginative thinking—and he is right; for the group has not gone beyond recall in its thinking in order to produce possible solutions to the problem. In such a session, however, the members have at least prof¬ ited from the interchange of experiences described earlier. However, as a group brainstorms for longer stints of time, it begins to wax more imaginative. It soon begins to run out of ideas that come from memory. At this point there is nothing left to do but to adapt, combine, and rearrange thoughts —and thus to conceive new ideas. The members begin to see new and unusual relationships among their thoughts and experiences—which is the essence of crea¬ tive thinking. It is for this reason that brainstorming leaders have found the best ideas fre¬ quently occurring late in the session. I have sometimes stopped brainstorming groups at the end of an allotted time period, asking them if they felt they had had enough time. When they indicate “yes,” I set them to work for another five minutes. During the evaluation of all the ideas later, they are quite impressed with the fact that some of their best ideas came from the extra five-minute period. The experienced brainstormer learns to begin creative approaches earlier in the session. In the University of Buffalo re¬ search project mentioned earlier, where subjects had used brainstorming’s princi¬

ple of deferred judgment individually— not in groups, it was discovered that those experienced in using the principle averaged 125 per cent more good quality ideas than the inexperienced subjects. COMMON MISUNDERSTANDINGS

Brainstorming is often misunderstood because the over-all objective is forgotten. It becomes to some people an end instead of a means. If it can be kept in mind that the real purpose of brainstorming, as well as many other current operational proce¬ dures for increasing creativity, is to over¬ come the various blocks that hinder us from being as productively creative as we might be, then we would get into fewer debates about the value of brainstorming or its worth in relation to other techniques. A carpenter doesn’t think so much of his hammer when he is building a house that he claims no other tools are important. He realizes the value of the hammer, the saw, and all his other tools at the proper times in performing his work. And so it is with brainstorming in relation to all other creative procedures. Furthermore, the evaluation phase of the brainstorming procedure is very fre¬ quently misunderstood. Alex Osborn said, Don t drive with your brakes on when trying to think up ideas.” Perhaps he should have emphasized, to make it com¬ pletely clear to everybody, “But don’t get rid of your brakes!” As a matter of fact, if we make our motors more powerful, we naturally want even stronger brakes, even though we follow Dr. Osborn’s advice not to use both nt the same time. As a person becomes better able to think up imagina¬ tive ideas, he must also become more effective at eventually judging these ideas. Otherwise, he might do better not to in¬ crease his imagination at all. It could actu¬ ally be dangerous! There are those who consider brain¬ storming a superficial, easy, something-

DO

YOU

REALLY

UNDERSTAND

for-nothing philosophy. But anyone who has really studied brainstorming will attest that the prescribed use of the procedure in problem-solving is the very antithesis of such description. Students in the Univer¬ sity of Buffalo Creative Problem-Solving classes spend over one-third of a semester processing serious problems (such as “how to get the most out of school”) before they are permitted to bring aspects of the prob¬ lems to class groups for brainstorming as¬ sistance. They likewise spend a large block of their time in the evaluation and develop¬ ment processes. NOT SUPERFICIAL At various stages during this entire creative problem-solving procedure, the students discover group brainstorming to be very helpful. But in submitting his solutions, the individual accepts the respon¬ sibility of offering the plan as the most effective one he could produce (in any manner of thinking). He cannot place re¬ sponsibility for his solution on a poor brainstorming group. The final answer is arrived at through a combination of care¬ ful individual ideation and judgment, as well as some group thinking. The percent¬ ages allotted to each is strictly up to the individual. By far the greatest percentage of time is spent in individual ideation and judgment. It becomes quite apparent that there is nothing superficial about using brain¬ storming in problem-solving. Actually the procedure introduces additional creative effort into conventional problem-solving procedures. It is true that a group brainstorming session is often called unnecessarily, as are many group meetings. In such cases it is like a workman ordering a steamshovel to move a few bushels of dirt. This is a lazy and inefficient way to operate. On the other hand, it would certainly be faulty reasoning to condemn the steamshovel or

BRAINSTORMING?

2#p

the brainstorming procedure in these ex¬ amples. In both cases, it is the user of the tool who is at fault. Many times, on simple problems, a group brainstorming session can provide a very quick, easy and superficial answer— one that is adequate for the purpose. An example might be the use of group brain¬ storming in arriving quickly at a number of ideas for promoting a scholarship dance. But even here a more productive session results if the leader works diligently be¬ forehand in developing questions that stimulate group thinking along a variety of approaches, and if he applies creative thinking in his evaluation and develop¬ ment of the vast array of ideas. Frequently the group assistance in brainstorming accomplishes in a short time what an individual could accomplish over a long period, if he had adequate motiva¬ tion and perseverance. As one engineer said, “I could have derived every single idea that the brainstorming session pro¬ duced, only it would have taken me six months instead of 30 minutes.” A WAY OF THINKING One further point of confusion regard¬ ing brainstorming: people often get the impression that the technique is designed to make anyone become a “genius” in solving any problems. Actually, the defer¬ ment of judgment principle is simply a way of thinking (for individuals or groups) which can help make “average Joes” better than average in their ability to solve their everyday problems. On the other hand, it can also help the brilliant person attack his problems more effectively. As long ago as 1788 one of our great poet-philosophers was advocating brain¬ storming’s deferment of judgment prin¬ ciple. Witness this quotation from a his¬ toric letter of Frederick Schiller to a friend who complained of lack of creative power: “The reason for your complaint lies,

2g0

SIDNEY

J.

PARNES

it seems to me, in the constraint which your intellect imposes upon your imag¬ ination. Here I will make an observation, and illustrate it by an allegory. Appar¬ ently, it is not good—and indeed it hinders the creative work of the mind—if the in¬ tellect examines too closely the ideas al¬ ready pouring in, as it were, at the gates. Regarded in isolation, an idea may be quite insignificant, and venturesome in the extreme, but it may acquire importance from an idea which follows it; perhaps, in a certain collocation with other ideas, which may seem equally absurd, it may be capable of furnishing a very serviceable link. The intellect cannot judge all those ideas unless it can retain them until it has considered them in connection with these other ideas. In the case of a creative mind, it seems to me, the intellect has with¬ drawn its watchers from the gates, and the ideas rush in pell-mell, and only then does it review and inspect the multitude. You worthy critics, or whatever you may call yourselves, are ashamed or afraid of

the momentary and passing madness which is found in all real creators, the longer or shorter duration of which dis¬ tinguishes the thinking artist from the dreamer. Hence your complaints of un¬ fruitfulness, for you reject too soon and discriminate too severely.” 9 Psychologists for years have been talk¬ ing about environment and climate for creativity. Dr. L. L. Thurstone said, “Even though we are ignorant about the nature of creative talent, we can be pretty sure that it can be encouraged or discouraged by environmental conditions.”10 What brainstorming really attempts to accom¬ plish is to help provide a mental and phys¬ ical environment which allows for the en¬ couragement that Thurstone and Schiller suggest. 9 Freud, Sigmund, The Basic Writings of Sigmund Freud, ed. by A. A. Brill, New York, Random House, 1938, p. 193. 10 Industrial Research Institute, Inc., The Nature of Creative Thinking, New York Uni¬ versity Press, 1952, p. 42. [See Selection 5.]

Selection 2/ JOSEPH G. MASON

SUGGESTIONS FOR BRAINSTORMING TECHNICAL AND RESEARCH PROBLEMS

Joseph g. mason

is a member of the staff of the Minneapolis office of

Batten, Barton, Durstine, and Osborn, and author of the book How to Be a More Creative Executive (New York, McGraw-Hill, i960). He has lectured and conducted a variety of programs on creative problem¬ solving. In 1959 he conducted a special instructor-training program in creativity for Headquarters Alaskan Command and he has recently lec¬ tured on the subject at the NATO Defense College in Paris. In this paper Mason describes methods developed during a course for research personnel. The exercises in Team Collaboration and in “Stop-and-Go” brainstorming at the end of the article are especially valuable as examples of proportioning time between creative thinking and judicial thinking when attacking problems. Mason refers to the “Buzz” group discussion technique frequently throughout this selection. This discussion procedure involves allowing approximately six minutes for groups of six each to reach a conclusion regarding a question posed to the total class or audience. The pro¬ cedure was originated by Dr. Donald Phillips, President of Hillsdale College, and is frequently referred to as the “Phillips 66” technique (six people, six minutes). This paper was prepared by Mason as a report of a project carried out in his course. The report was subsequently reproduced for dis¬ tribution by the Creative Education Foundation.

29/

292

JOSEPH

G.

MASON

This report covers an attempt to solve some of the problems of applying group creative methods to complex technical and scientific problems. The “attempt” as such was made by personnel participating in a course in Creative Thinking conducted for the Technical Forum at Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company, St. Paul, Minnesota. All class members were working research and product develop¬ ment men; job interests were predomi¬ nantly chemistry and physics. Course in¬ structor: Joseph G. Mason, 4231 Aldrich Ave. S., Minneapolis 9, Minnesota. Background: The 3M Course in Crea¬ tive Thinking consisted of 10 class sessions of two hours each. Four sessions were de¬ voted to introducing and practicing differ¬ ent group creative methods: 1. Brainstorming, as developed by Alex Osborn. 2. Creative Collaboration by Teams (see end of article for exercise outline). 3. “Stop-and-Go” or “Progressive” Brain¬ storming (see end of article). 4. W. J. J. Gordon’s Design Synthesis technique. (In addition to these, the “Buzz Group” discussion technique was used throughout the course.) At the final session of the course, the class was given the general assignment of inventing a new group creative method. They were instructed that the word “new” was used in its broadest creative sense; not necessarily a whole new entity, but pos¬ sibly a combination of existing methods in a new form to meet the specific needs of 3M’s technical problems. Conduct of Exercise: In order to suit¬ ably orient the participants, two “warm¬ up” problems were used: 1. By Buzz Groups: “Considering the nature of 3M’s technical problems, what would be the characteristics of a good group creative method? Suggest at least three.” (Each group reported their ideas to

the class, which discussed them, and the agreed-upon characteristics were put on the board.) 2. Brainstorm Panels (one to each): “What suggestions can you give for modifying Brainstorming to make it a more generally usable tool for scientific work?” And: “Remember our exercise in team col¬ laboration. What suggestions can you come up with for modifying this system into a group method?” (note: In the previous session on the Gordon technique, the class evaluation in¬ dicated that this method would not be suitable for the problems of this particular group. Therefore, it was not included for further consideration. However, some of Gordon’s principles did show up in the final recommendations.) Following the Brainstorming of the problems above, each panel evaluated their own ideas and selected the five best for presentation to the class. These were then listed on the board, and the class was given the final problem for Buzz Group han¬ dling:

“Outline your suggestions for a group creative technique that would be of value on typical 3M technical problems. Remem¬ ber the preparation you have done so far.” This same problem was tackled by all three groups, following which, each group leader reported to the class. Following are summaries of the individual group reports: REPORT OF GROUP NO. I

1. There must be a procedure accepted throughout the company for selecting par¬ ticipants in Brainstorming sessions: (a) All possible participants should be trained in the technique. (b) There should be a central “roster of skills” which can be referred to in draw¬ ing panelists for any particular problem. 2. On more complex problems, two sessions by the same panel should be con¬ sidered right from the start:

BRAINSTORMING

TECHNICAL

Session I—(a) The originator of the problem would meet with the panel to define the general problem and answer questions, (b) Next, the group would Brainstorm “openly and wildly.” (c) Fol¬ lowing this, the originator of the problem hands out a “brief” containing technical requirements and a bibliography of the specific problem. Session II—to be scheduled 2-3 weeks later to allow time for thorough study of the problem. At this session, the panel Brainstorms the problem in earnest, possibly using the “Stop-and-Go” technique if the problem is overly complex. 3. Following the evaluation of ideas produced in both sessions, the originator of the problem reports back to panelists on results, and may request a “repeat” if he has not been able to develop a solution. REPORT OF GROUP NO. 2

1. There must be an organized system of panel selection, including a roster of skills for use in drawing panelists. 2. Orientation of the problem must be done by the man who has the problem. He should have enough understanding of Brainstorming to develop a problem state¬ ment on a specific of the general problem. 3. This group also recommended a 2-session attack: (a) The first session would consist of verbal briefing by the man with the problem, and a group Brainstorm, (b) At conclusion of first session, a printed briefing would be given each panel member and a second session of the same panel would be held 2 or 3 days after the first for additional ideas. 4. Problem originator would be one of a two- or three-man team to evaluate ideas. REPORT OF GROUP NO. 3

1. This group suggested using a team of 2 or 3 men to define and “prepare” the problem, (a) They may, at this step, solve it. (b) If not, the team selects the Brain¬ storm panel members and appoints a chair¬ man. 2. At a preliminary panel meeting,

AND

RESEARCH

PROBLEMS

29 J

the team presents the problems, answers questions, and supplies any necessary “printed” briefing. Following this, a 2 or 3 day incubation period is allowed. 3. At the second panel meeting, mem¬ bers either Brainstorm or “Buzz” the prob¬ lem, depending upon the specific nature of the problem. (Brainstorming would be used when what was wanted was a good list of alter¬ natives for study. The Buzz technique was preferred if the problem was something that required evaluation or a decision. It would be used by breaking the 12-14 panelists into 3 or 4 smaller groups to submit independent reports.) 4. When either the Brainstormed ideas or the independent Buzz reports are turned in, the original team acts as an evaluating committee to screen ideas and recommend or initiate action. 5. Team reports back to panel mem¬ bers with results. General observations: (The following opinions are those of the instructor, based on these reports, and the resulting class discussion.) 1. There is no question about the ac¬ ceptance of Brainstorming as a valuable creative technique by-this particular group. Their prime interest in it seemed to be in the “time compression” feature: Brain¬ storming gives them a means of quickly compiling a list of alternatives they can use to “get going.” 2. Further support for the acceptance of Brainstorming lies in the fact that the decision to switch the problem from “ways to improve Brainstorming for technical problems” to “ways to process technical problems to make them suitable for Brain¬ storming” was entirely that of the class. 3. There was a definite feeling that technical and scientific persons probably need special orientation and training in the Brainstorm process. Most such peo¬ ple are well indoctrinated in conventional talk-and-judge conference methods, and they must be taught that Brainstorming

294

JOSEPH

G .

MASON

has different objectives and different meth¬ ods. 4. Because of the complexity of tech¬ nical problems, it was felt that an integral part of the program must be an available “roster of skills,” and that the panel se¬ lector must be free to draw anyone from this list if his previous experience could be valuable. (When told that 3M does have such a roster, class members immediately suggested that it be put on IBM cards to facilitate its use.)

sirable alternative to individual orienta¬ tion of problems. This may be so because, in this particular company, the standard “working unit” is a laboratory team of 2 or 3 men. Giving the team full respon¬ sibility throughout the problem-solving sequence does not, therefore, represent too great a departure from normal procedure. It was also felt that requiring approval by all members of the team would cut down on “unnecessary” requests for Brainstorm sessions.

5. There was a definite feeling that a Brainstorming procedure should be “formalized” in a management-approved “manual” to aid its adoption. The opinion was that many people who could benefit from using the technique, hesitate to do so for fear they would be “imposing” on the time of the panelists. A formal pro¬ cedure would serve to approve the prac¬ tice and remove some of the present feel¬ ing of “imposition.”

7. The “Buzz” technique was favored for use on decision-making and other eval¬ uation-type problems. The main feature that participants seemed to like about “Buzzing” was the fact that they had a definite conclusion to reach in a stated amount of time. This served to keep them on the track in their discussions. (There was a suggestion that the practice of set¬ ting “time and target” should be adopted for every conference!)

6. A “team” was felt to be a de¬ EXERCISE IN note:

TEAM

COLLABORATION

Basic principles involved are alternation of judicial (critical) thinking and crea¬ tive thinking; and alternate individual and team activity. I—Individual

T—Team

Time

1. (I) General problem; state in own words 3 different ways. 5 min. 2. (T) Agree on general problem statement. 5 min. 3. (I) Break into sub-problems. 5 min. 4. (T) Consolidate lists of sub-problems. 5 min. 5. (I) Pick key sub-problem. Why? 5 min. 6- (T) Agree on key sub-problem and reason for selecting it. (This will be referred to as the “Problem” for the rest of the exercise.) 5 min. 7. (I) List all the facts you can think of pertinent to this problem. Also facts you would like to have. 5 min. ^ (T) Consolidate your lists of facts. Look for combinations. 5 min. 9. (I) Think of at least 20 ideas that might be of value in solving this problem. 20 min. 10. (T) Team to list a total of at least 50 ideas. No duplications, 15 min. ir. (I) Pick the best 5 ideas from the combined list. 15 min. I2, (T) Jointly agree on the best 3 ideas. 5 min. I3- (I) Suggest a course of action on each of the 3 ideas. 5 min. 14. (T) Agree on the course of action for each idea. 5 min. note:

Each team to be prepared to report on (1) General Problem Statement (2) Sub-problems (3) Key sub-problem and why selected (4) 3 final ideas and courses of action.

BRAINSTORMING

TECHNICAL

EXERCISE

IN

AND

STOP-AND-GO

RESEARCH

PROBLEMS

295

BRAINSTORMING

[red indicates judicial thinking; green indicates creative thinking.]

5 min. 5 min. 5 min.

3.

10 min. 10 min.

4. 5.

10 min.

6.

10 min.

7.

10 min.

8.

10 min.

9.

10 min.

10.

10 min.

11.

5 min. 10 min.

13.

1.

(Class) How shall we state the general problem? (Class) What sub-problems are apparent in this? red (Buzz groups) Which area shall we explore first? Why? (All groups to report—then seek agreement.) green (Class) What positive attributes are we looking for? red (Buzz groups) Which of these attributes meet the requirements of our problem as stated? green (3 Brainstorm Panels—secretaries record on boards or pads) Con¬ sider each of desirable attributes. Three suggestions for reproducing this (can be possibilities only) artificially. red (Class) Brainstorm leaders report. Take stock of where we are. (a) Are we making progress? (b) Can we zero in on a specific direction? If not, where are we weak? green (Brainstorm panels). Ideate on weakest of above. Quota each panel: 20 ideas. red (Buzz groups) Do we have any specific possibilities now? What are they? If none, what have we overlooked? green (Brainstorm panels) Ideate this possibility (or) ideate possibilities of overlooked field. red (Buzz groups) What is our best possibility for exploration now? Why? green (Brainstorm panels) Ways in which we could test this possibility. red (Buzz groups) Decide on best way to test and to implement the idea. red

2. green

12.

Selection 26 LEO B. MOORE

CREATIVE ACTION— THE EVALUATION, DEVELOPMENT, AND USE OF IDEAS

one

of

the

standard

objections

to the use of brainstorming several

years ago was that the ultimate evaluation of ideas became too difficult. Leo B. Moore, associate professor of Industrial Management at Massa¬ chusetts Institute of Technology, has met this objection in his teaching. In this address to the 1959 and i960 Creative Problem-Solving Institutes at the University of Buffalo, he explores ways to evaluate, develop, and use the best ideas. The reader will readily discover how this selection can be used for training in the judgment and decision-making phases of creative problem¬ solving. The practical techniques Moore describes must be taught to in¬ sure the usefulness of the idea-gathering phases of creative problem¬ solving. Conference leaders, managers and upper-level administrators can especially profit by the methods Moore describes.

2 g8

LEO

B.

MOORE

THE PROBLEM BEFORE US Several years ago a manager with con¬ siderable irritation in his voice and man¬ ner presented me with a problem. He and his group had held a brainstorming ses¬ sion and had produced twenty-two ideas about handling an internal problem. This he conceded was a wonderful demonstra¬ tion of the creativity of the group but they had all gone off and left him with the list of ideas and now he had another problem. As he put it, “Which do I use?” From where he sits every manager will put creative activity to the pragmatic test. Do we generate at least one good idea and do we put it to use? This is the real evaluation in the mind of the manager and only the application successfully to the problem at hand of the output of the brainstorming or other creative thinking technique interests him. This must needs be so-—we spent time and energy to pro¬ duce a product—but was it useful and did it do the job? Actually, the manager had two prob¬ lems as does anyone who insists upon mak¬ ing creative endeavors effective and valu¬ able. These two separable problems are “choosing” and “using.” They are dif¬ ferent problems even though related and associated and both in my opinion and ex¬ perience are amenable to the creative ap¬ proach. To demonstrate and highlight this I should like to treat the two separately and together under the headings of Crea¬ tive Evaluation and Creative Management. THE PROBLEM OF CHOICE In this country we pride ourselves in the fact that we have many freedoms and the greatest freedom of all is the freedom to choose. And it should be remembered that for all of us this includes the freedom, or at least the inclination, not to choose.

Herein lies the basic issue in our problem of the evaluation, development, and use of ideas. As a part of the creative process we employ a creative thinking technique, whichever it may be, that specifies that no judicial thinking will be permitted—an attitude of suspended judgment will be maintained. Consequently, the output from this exercise of brain power is per¬ force a list of possibilities ranging from the ridiculous and impractical at this point in time to the sensible and useful today. Thus if we seek effective use the need to choose is forced upon us by our technique. From the human viewpoint the fun of creativity is replaced by the work of dif¬ ficult decision-making. For the group there is a clear change of mood from the cer¬ tainty of joint creativity to the uncertainty of mutual agreement. Choosing therefore not only raises the question of the decision¬ making technique—how do we decide?— but the effect that decision will have—the impact on the human organization. FORMS OF DECISION-MAKING Although we like to think that we make decisions through organized, sys¬ tematic thinking, as a matter of fact we may be greatly influenced by hunch, preju¬ dice, set conviction, or similar evident or suppressed feelings. To see the wide range of methods of reaching a decision, but in no earnest attempt at an all-inclusive list, here is a variety with some indication of the human side: 1. Toss of a Coin: In many situations, one way seems as good as another and nothing can be accomplished by debate— so why not decide on the turn of a coin? 2. Check lists: Points to be considered in reaching a decision are frequently of great help and everyone who works with the same kind of situation regularly tends to develop a list of items to check in order

CREATIVE

ACTION—EVA

to be certain that the right move is made. But do we always have the significant mat¬ ters included? 3. Advantages versus disadvantages: Closely allied to the check list is the method of setting forth the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative. It is easy here to forget that one disadvantage may well outweigh a long list of advan¬ tages and therefore some system of weight¬ ing is needed. But what system shall we use? 4. Highest Rank: If the desirable fea¬ tures of a decision are known then the weighting method lends itself to ranking of alternatives with the selected one hav¬ ing the greatest value or highest rank in these terms. But do we really know what we want? 5. Compromise: Frequently the proc¬ ess of weighting and ranking leads to the proposal that some parts of several alterna¬ tives be combined to form a compromise solution. Needless to say, the compromise has the weakness that everyone concedes something and is well aware of his con¬ cession. His part is well known to him and the other parts leave something to be de¬ sired. 6. Compound: If however, in the course of seeking a compromise, we are able to put acceptable pieces together and from them develop a new and different so¬ lution as we can from the chemical reaction of two elements then we have a compound decision as a product of the choosing proc¬ ess. Such a decision tends to have group ownership and identification, although it requires time and interest on the part of everyone. 7. Committee: Jokingly, and some¬ times with great truth, it is said that if you do not want a decision then send it to a committee. But a committee does have its place in the decision-making world and not the least of its advantages is the fact that a committee does provide for fuller

UATION

AND

USE

OF

IDEAS

299

communication, greater understanding, and better willingness to accept a decision and support its implementation. 8. Delay: Often the direction and scope of a decision can be better sensed by the mixing in of time and circumstance that arises with time. The very process of waiting may make the decision itself un¬ necessary or may provide assurance of the soundness or rightness of the proposed solution. CREATIVE EVALUATION A good decision may be the result of a lucky guess. More often it is the con¬ sequence of hard thinking centered around the evaluation of alternatives. And this process is simply hard work. This was well known to our manager with his twentytwo ideas as was the understanding that the technique of choosing as well as the impact on his human organization were both equally important. The question we raised was whether the brainstorming technique which created the list of ideas could be used to evaluate these ideas. The manager raised the issue first as to whether the creative group should be the evaluative group. For hu¬ man relations reasons which I shall de¬ velop more fully later I felt that the same group should perform the two tasks. I take issue with the proposition that two dif¬ ferent groups perform these two activities unless there is very definite reason for this separation and only then if full and com¬ plete communication is provided the crea¬ tive group on the evaluation process and its results. Not only do I have concern here for the human aspects but if we remember the linkage of evaluation with develop¬ ment and use of the output of the evalua¬ tion process more often than not the same group should perform the two activities. On this basis the group who created the twenty-two were called together for

■JOO

LEO

B.

MOORE

the evaluation. They discovered what the manager already knew. The piece by piece process of running each possibility through some evaluation technique until the right answer clearly shines through the murk of indecision is demanding, tedious, and dif¬ ficult. This was all the more true when they reflected upon their own position. Each person had the pressures of his own situation on his mind. His job, the urgent details, the time demands, the promises made, other things to do and a number of similar matters made this a most frustrat¬ ing experience. The rough diamonds in the list of twenty-two needed a lot of polishing before they would be of any value. Undaunted by several such meetings we tried a different tack and developed what we later labelled “creative evalua¬ tion” because an evaluation technique was the output of this creative endeavor. The new approach was essentially from the viewpoint of the manager. The group rea¬ soned that he would be only interested in a good idea and for him a good idea had to be both usable and a change for the better. This discussion began to recog¬ nize the economic side of the problem as having larger impact than the technical or improvement side. Or said another way, the idea with the largest improvement po¬ tential but requiring the greatest expendi¬ ture of time and money to achieve may not be so good for our manager as an¬ other with minimum requirements of time and money. After all, the manager now has a problem; he would now like to have some action in connection with it. Some present gain in his situation would be better than some promise of future advance. Out of these reasonings came an eval¬ uation technique of ranking based on some loose concepts of a mixture of time and money. The “simple” ideas would be those which could be put into operation with small expenditure of time and money.

Two ranks above “simple” were “hard” and “difficult” to indicate increasing ex¬ penditures of these two items. With this technique in hand, the group now was able to go through the list of twenty-two quickly and mark each item appropriately. We used Roman numerals thus: I for simple, II for hard, and III for difficult.

ADVANTAGES OF CREATIVE EVALUATION 1. Speed: From the description of the use of this technique it is obvious that a group can quickly go through a list of ideas and mark them with the appropriate Roman numerals. This advantage is most evident when the list contains a large num¬ ber of items. 2. Logical groups: With this tech¬ nique ideas which seemed unrelated began to be placed together by virtue of the ranking. This combination tended in many instances to develop a full and complete idea by seeing the package of ideas as a single course of action. 3. Programming of improvement: The ranking system provided for the group a program of action by indicating that the simple ones would be used first and then the hard and then the difficult. Specifically, the group acquired a sense of the successive moves which could be made into the future with respect to the problem and time was available for each successive step to be properly assessed, developed, and tested while at the same time action was taking place in the form of present improvement.1 4. Combined choice and use: The greatest advantage by far of this technique was the willingness on the part of the group to not only choose but to accept the responsibility for action. Even greater was 1 See: Leo B. Moore, ‘‘How to Manage Improvement,” Harvard Business Review, July-August 1958.

CREATIVE

ACTION — EVA LUATION

the willingness to move ahead immediately with these decisions and see them in place. DEVELOPMENTS WITH CREATIVE EVALUATION Extensive use of this approach with many and varied industrial groups have pin-pointed these advantages. These groups have been in production, sales, office, ware¬ house and similar segments of a company activity, and have ranged in managerial level from the highest down. The interest¬ ing development has been that the crea¬ tive evaluation technique did not seem as effective at the executive levels as at the lower levels. Excellent results were very consistent with work-centered groups—that is, groups who had a specific problem before them and could take action. Such groups I would characterize as being in¬ volved with people and things as com¬ pared to the executive groups who are concerned with people and ideas. With these latter groups the technique seemed to provide a feeling of inadequacy because the problems dealt with are different and dynamic. Therefore with these executive groups I have not pressed the technique upon them, but have experimented to discover some more effective way to handle this problem of evaluation, development, and use of creative output. It should be remem¬ bered that executives have a great deal more experience with group work since the conference is the natural executive commu¬ nication device. As a result, it seems that these executives naturally try to find groupings of ideas first and usually the idea groups make for related groups of persons who are concerned with or in¬ terested in the idea group. Thus, the list may have some combined engineering and marketing ideas which are espoused by a combination of members of the conference. This natural idea grouping then is readily amenable to an evaluation, development,

AND

USE

OF

IDEAS

j01

and application treatment on the creative evaluation basis by the people group. The most interesting aspect is that from the natural grouping there seems to arise for these executive groups new dimensions to their problems, a redevelopment of their ideas, a more enthusiastic acceptance of responsibility, as well as a sense of self¬ development. There is a feeling of crea¬ tive action as compared to the “nothingever-gets-done” conference. A REVIEW From these experiences it should be understood that what I have attempted is a difficult task—that of being creatively judicial. In review, it seems to me that we should delay evaluation and let time seep into the process. In a sequence we should, after the creativity list is well along, man¬ age the process by successively calling for (x) natural groupings, (2) introducing criteria, (3) calling for decision on use, (4) reaching agreement on plan of action, (5) deciding on form of recommendation to the boss, and (6) highlighting what was accomplished by the group. During these changing activities we should continue the creative thinking mood to the degree that we are able, in order to: 1. Maintain the morale, the excitement, the enthusiasm, the fun of group crea¬ tivity, and 2. Reduce the negative impact, the coldwater effect, the loss of the will to do, the uncertainty of evaluation, and yet 3. Recognize the need, the insistence, the value, the demands of both. THE JOB OF MANAGING This is the point at which my ex¬ perience now stands as I attempt to apply some creative thinking to creative think¬ ing. My interests here lie in the general area of management because I am im¬ pressed by the fact that the reason we

J02

LEO

B.

MOORE

have had consistent difficulty with and even reluctance to face up to the process of evaluation, development, and use of crea¬ tive ideas is because this is the work of management. Many of us tend to think of our job as a piece of work to do rather than a management opportunity. In this vein we tend to not recognize that we all have the same responsibility—that of help¬ ing the boss make better decisions. In fact, on the many occasions when I have asked managers what they did do I have never sensed they were giving me a considered list and have never been given such words as “improve” or “be creative.” ESSENCE OF MANAGEMENT By these remarks I do not mean that we are not well aware of the need to help the boss or that we are not interested in improvement and creativity, but rather that many managers are so busy with many matters that their basic task is slighted. To my mind, the manager is distinguished by his willingness to take risks and therefore his need to make decisions. To support these functions the manager accepts cer¬ tain activities such as planning, directing, and controlling. His challenge in manage¬ ment does not lie however in these areas but in his ability to handle the human problems involved. The manager is in¬ evitably measured by the results he gets and he gets these results through and with people. HOW SUCCESSFUL ARE WE? As far as economic results are con¬ cerned, figures can be and are compiled to show the level of our standard of living, the wealth of our people, the capacity of our business establishment, and other sun¬ dry monuments to our managerial prow¬ ess. But these were the accomplishments of yesterday. What of today and tomor¬ row? The facts are, and will be increas¬

ingly before us, in the form of inter¬ national competition which is even now pressing us on every front. The cost, the quality, the service, the repair of products which for a long time were uniquely American is suffering by comparison with the output of other countries. By design we created this condition in our far-sighted and generous economic aid to other nations, and hopefully, by ac¬ cident we will again rediscover the virtues of sound management. On the human side of the ledger we cannot look with pride to the persistent feeling of “let George do it,” of “aw the hell with it,” and of “me first,” which characterizes the surface behavior of the country and grossly influences our managerial effectiveness. These attitudes are the product of the times and of the recent history but they are not conducive to great promise for the future. PEOPLE AND CHANGE In a specific way these attitudes are given dimension when we contemplate the use of creative ideas to effect change. The natural human reaction to change is to resist the change in an active or passive way. Many examples can be given to show the “it’ll fail,” “it won’t work,” “it’s no good,” “it’s too much trouble” response to a proposal to do something differently. Even when it can be shown that the idea has merit, the reaction is the same—No! A simple explanation for this resistance is found in the concept that the criticism in¬ herent in the new look at the way the job is now being done is deeply resented and the reaction is in the form of resistance to the new. Considerable work with groups in this area of change has indicated that to a large degree people do not so much resist change or resent criticism as they do resist being changed and resent being criti¬ cized. When people have the opportunity to participate in the change, make their

CREATIVE

ACTION — EVALUATION

own criticisms and their own changes, they more often than not accept rather than reject, go along rather than hold back, and follow through rather than hinder. Not only does this concept of par¬ ticipation have this specific application but it also draws upon a fundamental truth— that people have ideas and particularly have ideas about the work they are doing. ATTITUDE AND CHANGE From these condensed remarks about the impact of change on people and the handling of the human side of change it should be clear that the decision which se¬ lects the best idea is only the beginning of a long journey to its successful application. The way we feel about this trip may have more to do with its success than any tech¬ nique we use. We may be concerned for example with the fact that we can have change without improvement, but realize in turn we cannot have improvement with¬ out change. More importantly, our efforts, devoted to changing behavior of people and attempting to deal with behavioral problems, should in fact center on the basic problem of attitude and of attitude¬ changing. It is for this reason that we should all be concerned not so much with the economics of our situation but with the attitude of our people influencing these measures. Attitudes strongly influence be¬ havior, and until they are changed, any change in behavior is transient. With proper attitudes, proper behavior will re¬ sult. MANAGEMENT AND CHANGE Managers as people have as much tendency to resist change and being changed as do the managed. Since great pressures are brought to bear upon man¬ agers to effect change, it is only natural for them to make the decision to change and to live with the human reaction to

AND

USE

OF

IDEAS

JOJ

this imposition on their human organiza¬ tion. The knowledge of the force and scope of this reaction may well prompt the manager to be reluctant or at least not enthusiastic about change in general. It is for this reason that an old and established business may not be as competitively agile as a young and enthusiastic firm in the mood for all that is new and different. The problem then for all managers across the country is to develop a more positive attitude to change and a greater under¬ standing of the total improvement process from the human side.2 MANAGEMENT ATTITUDE Every manager with a little thought will agree that his human resources are his greatest assets. He can lose his buildings, his equipment, his tools, and all his physi¬ cal assets but let him lose his people and all is lost. In my opinion, managers have to a large extent lost their people by fail¬ ing to make as diligent efforts to their understanding as they have toward ma¬ terials, tools, equipment, and the like. Fur¬ ther than that, managers accept the con¬ straints of materials for example by design¬ ing processes with the material in mind, but their reaction to the characteristics of people is usually in the vein that people should not be the way they are. The atti¬ tude is voiced in the words: “Why can’t they simply do it the new way without all this trouble?’’ The growing appreciation of some twenty years of preaching of the principle of participation provides some large hope for this situation. Many managers are beginning to realize that the eighteen golden rules for handling people effec¬ tively are as patently sensible as the six tried and true techniques for bringing up children. Out of acceptance of the value 2 See: Leo B. Moore, “Too Much Manage¬ ment, Too Little Change,” Harvard Business Review, January-February 1956.

LEO

B.

MOORE

of participation has come an enlarging concept of consultation as an attitude of management in which people will be con¬ sulted about those matters which do or may concern them. Clearly these advanc¬ ing developments in managerial attitudes toward the human aspect of their job give reason to predict that the change will be for the better on all fronts—economic as well as social.

CREATIVE MANAGEMENT Whatever else comes out of this change, it is my opinion that managers will evidence a greater concern for and use of creative thinking. He may return to a basic fact that the job is the most im¬ portant thing for every person in this country, not from a purely economic point of view but from a human aspect as well. The job provides for the person the op¬ portunity to be greater than himself; and he will—when the manager makes creative thinking a tool of his management. The manager may come to see his

responsibility of getting results through greater dependence upon the creative acts of his people individually and in groups both in the production of ideas and in their use. He may well give them more op¬ portunity to pursue their ideas to failure or success while still maintaining his essential character of taking risks and making de¬ cisions. Why? In my opinion the managerial issues of the future are already joined. We built the industrial might of this country when engineering led science—when we knew how to do it without knowing what made it happen. During this era we appreciated that there was nothing like good ideas and we feared them in the hands of a com¬ petitor. The job today is to realize the ex¬ istence of the vast reservoir of creative po¬ tential in our people that lies latent and dormant, that needs release, that must be put to work, and should be developed fur¬ ther. We should be striving for the joy of creativity that comes out of the work of creativity because the pursuit of an idea to its effective implementation is the high¬ est level of creative human endeavor.

PART V Case Studies of Educational Programs for the Deliberate Development of Creative Problem-Solving Ability

MANY APPLICATIONS HAVE BEEN MADE OF CREATIVE PROBLEM-SOLVING PRIN-

ciples and procedures to formalized educational programs in colleges and in industry. In this part of the book we present three examples: (i) a university educational program devoted specifically to creative problem-solving; (2) a university course integrating creative problem-solving principles and procedures into a specific subject matter area; and (3) an industry program integrating the principles into engineering. The three examples were chosen for these reasons: (a) All three are illustrations of well-established, tried and tested courses. (b) Literature was available describing them. There are equally good examples in other institutions (educational, governmental, and business or industrial) for which descriptive publica¬ tions were not as readily available. Osborn discusses several of these other programs in Selection 3. One of the industry programs about which readers may well wish to learn more is the outstanding creativity pro¬ gram of the AC Spark Plug Division of General Motors Corporation. This story has been published in Nation’s Business, January 1957, in an article entitled, “Planned Creativity Pays Off.” Many operational programs (not primarily educational in purpose) apply the creative thinking principles. Familiar and well-established ex¬ amples are: Mogensen’s Work Simplification program (see “Work Sim¬ plification,” a documentary series of articles by Herbert F. Goodwin, in Factory Management and Maintenance, July 1958); Value Analysis

3°5

Programs (see “Applied Value Analysis,” entire special issue of Purchas¬ ing, June 8, 1959); and Suggestion Programs (for information and for the NASS Quarterly, write Nadonal Association of Suggestion Systems, 25 East Jackson Blvd., Chicago 4, Illinois).

Selection 17 SIDNEY J. PARNES

THE CREATIVE PROBLEM-SOLVING COURSE AND INSTITUTE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF BUFFALO

the author teaches

the Creative Problem-Solving courses at the Uni¬

versity of Buffalo. He also directs the annual Creative Problem-Solving Institute, which is designed to include the condensed equivalent of the semester course. The Creative Problem-Solving course has been offered at the University of Buffalo since 1949, and the Institute since 1955, under the leadership of Dean Robert F. Berner. The first part of this selection is a detailed description of the Uni¬ versity of Buffalo course. It was originally prepared to answer ques¬ tions from academicians who had read research reports evaluating the course. Following next is the essence of the author’s introduction to the Student Wor\boof{. This further explains the nature of the course. The last part of this selection consists of the Report of Proceedings of the latest annual Creative Problem-Solving Institute. The Proceedings indi¬ cate the manner in which the creative problem-solving course sessions are incorporated within the framework of the intensive three-day In¬ stitute. Also reported in the Proceedings is a Convocation of Leaders program, designed as an advanced program for Institute leaders and past participants, and an Instructor Development Program.

3°7

JC>8

SIDNEY

J .

PARNES

DESCRIPTION OF COURSE In the creative problem-solving course at the University of Buffalo students are taught the concepts in Alex F. Osborn’s textbook, Applied Imagination. The text emphasizes the importance of imagination in all walks of life, the universality of im¬ aginative talent, and the use of creativity in all stages of problem-solving, from ori¬ entation to evaluation. Perceptual, emotional, and cultural blocks to creative thinking are demon¬ strated and discussed in the course. Under perceptual blocks are covered such matters as the difficulty in isolating problems, dif¬ ficulty from narrowing the problem too much, inability to define or isolate at¬ tributes, failure to use all the senses in ob¬ serving. Under cultural and emotional blocks are emphasized the effects of: con¬ formity; over-emphasis on competition or cooperation; excessive faith in reason or logic; fear of mistakes, failure, or looking foolish; self-satisfaction; perfectionism; negative outlooks; reliance on authority. Early in the course students are taught the deferred judgment principle (artificially separating creative from ju¬ dicial thinking at various stages of prob¬ lem-solving) as applied both to individual ideation as well as to group ideation. The principle of deferred judgment allows the student more freedom for applying the other techniques that are stressed. In other words, students are taught to ideate first, judge afterwards. This forced separation of the creative and judicial functions is emphasized throughout the course. Within the “free wheeling” atmos¬ phere that the principle of deferred judg¬ ment provides, students are given practice in attribute listing (learning to look at problems from a variety of viewpoints). For example, in considering other uses for an object, such as a piece of paper, stu¬ dents are taught to look at each attribute of the paper, such as its whiteness, its four

corners, its straight edges, etc. Each of these attributes then suggests a number of possible uses. Check list procedures are encouraged, such as Osborn’s check list of idea-spurring questions. In this procedure students are taught to analyze a problem from the standpoint of a number of questions, such as: How can we simplify? What com¬ binations can be utilized? What adapta¬ tions can be made? Forced relationship techniques are utilized in the course. For example, a list of ideas is produced as tentative solutions to a problem. Each of these ideas is then artificially related to each other idea on the list in order to force new combina¬ tions. Sometimes a somewhat ridiculous idea is taken as a starting point. By asso¬ ciating the idea with the actual problem a series of associations is produced which leads in some novel direction towards solv¬ ing the problem. For example, an idea for selling more flowers by utilizing vending machines was rejected as a poor idea. However, by forced association of the thought of “vending machines” with the problem of “selling more flowers,” a useful solution was reached as follows: ap¬ proach companies who provide vending machines for employees, in order to per¬ suade these companies to utilize the profits from the machines for purchasing flowers for employees on birthdays, anniversaries, etc. Throughout the course the following matters are stressed: the importance of taking notes (keeping a record of ideas that come to one at all times, rather than just when one is working on a problem), setting deadlines and quotas for produc¬ tion of ideas, and setting aside certain times and places for deliberate idea pro¬ duction. Much opportunity is given in the course for deliberate practice in problem¬ solving on a variety of problems, including many of those brought in from the per¬ sonal lives of the students. Students are taught to sense problems

CREATIVE

PROBLEM- SOLVI NG

in their studies, work, and personal lives, and to properly define these problems for creative attack. The separation of creative and judicial functions is then practiced in all stages of solving these problems. For example, during the analysis step, students are taught to list every conceivable fact that would relate to the problem. After they have exhausted this “free wheeling” effort, they then apply judgment to culling the most important facts related to the problem. Students next create the longest possible list of questions and sources of additional data that could be of use in solving the problem. Then they go back to the judicial process of selecting the most important questions and sources of data. This procedure continues throughout the final stages of evaluation and presentation of ideas. In evaluation, for example, stu¬ dents are taught to develop the longest possible list of criteria by which to evaluate their tentative solutions. Then they apply judgment in terms cf selecting the most useful criteria for this purpose. Thus the principle of deferred judgment is empha¬ sized in both individual and group think¬ ing in all the aspects of the course. Informal procedures are utilized throughout the course. Chairs are arranged in a semicircle in order to encourage the greatest amount of group participation and discussion. Small groups are organized in many sessions in order to provide practice in team and group collaboration for produc¬ tion of ideas. Students are given oppor¬ tunities to serve as leaders of these small groups on various aspects of their own problems, as well as in assigned practice problems. ESSENCE OF THE INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDENT WORKBOOK FOR THE COURSE This workbook is for use during as well as outside of your class sessions, the greatest portions of which will be devoted to the practical application of creative

COURSE

AND

INSTITUTE

JO9

problem-solving processes. The Work¬ book activities in and out of class, together with your reading of the textbook, Ap¬ plied Imagination, should enable you not only to gain an understanding of the crea¬ tive problem-solving process, but also to practice this process in action. You will demonstrate to yourself that you can de¬ velop your own creative abilities. This course will be quite different from most courses you have taken. You will find that the instructor will not be asking you to “give back information”; rather, he will be asking you to learn to produce ideas—your own ideas—regard¬ ing a variety of problems. At first, because of the nature of your previous education and experience, you may find this quite difficult; 1 but as time goes on, you will become accustomed to exercising your creative imagination more fully—and you should begin to find it not only enjoyable, but actually exciting. You are certainly aware that change is very rapid in our present nuclear and space age—more rapid than ever before. The discoveries and innovations of the 1 “Imagination is tolerated in the young child, although it is not often encouraged. As the child grows older, he is impressed with the fact that his powers of imagination while being a source of amusement, are not prac¬ tical. He is told that he must get down to reality, start being practical, start using judg¬ ment. Unfortunately, judgment seems to take the place of imagination; as more and more judgment is used, less imagination is used. The possible consequence of this development might be the person who has tire greatest judgment of all. Theoretically again, this in¬ dividual would have the least amount of imagination. All of his decisions would be practical and economical; he would take no chances. His every action would be based on precedent and where no precedent exists, he would be at a complete loss. The individual being described is, of course, only an example, but how many people do we know that re¬ semble him—quite a few!” (From Confer¬ ence Leaders Manual of AC Spark Plug Divi¬ sion of General Motors Corporation.)

glO

SIDNEY

J.

PARNES

next twenty years will probably make the previous one hundred years seem to have progressed at a snail’s pace. Therefore a person cannot foresee ex¬ actly what knowledge he will need five or ten years from now to meet his life’s prob¬ lems. He can, however, develop attitudes and abilities that will help him to meet any problem creatively in the future. This will be your instructor’s objective in this course —to help you do just that. In the early sessions of the course your instructor will deliberately involve you in problem exercises with which you are not personally involved. He will help you to learn to apply your imagination to prob¬ lems of this kind so as to demonstrate to you that you can create imaginative solu¬ tions. After you have experienced this practice in using your imagination more fully, you will then be ready to apply the same type of thinking to important prob¬ lems that actually concern you. During the entire course you will find that a workshop atmosphere will prevail, which will involve a great deal of partici¬ pation on your part in demonstrating and applying the procedures of creative prob¬ lem-solving. It is an old maxim that we learn to do by doing; thus you will learn to solve problems creatively by practicing solving problems creatively during the course. Perhaps you may only make a start regarding the complete solution of any particular problem during the term of the course. This will depend upon the scope of the problem you choose. You may have an actual plan to put into effect regarding the problem you attack, or you may de¬ velop ideas or approaches that will take further exploration and development after the course is completed. Regardless, when the course is over you should have a clearer understanding of how to tackle a problem creatively, as well as an appreciation of some of the re¬ wards for creative effort. Also, you should

have a greater appreciation of your own creative potential, as well as a more crea¬ tive attitude in general, as a result of your experiences during this course. You may also make some very inter¬ esting and lasting friendships among fel¬ low students as a result of the continuous involvement with your classmates within the creative climate of this course. The course you will take should be interesting and fun; but don’t let the fun detract from the seriousness of purpose of the program. It is fun, but it is not for fun; it is for keeps! It can have a tremendous impact on all of your activities in your future life, as well as during your school days. Your instructor will do everything within his power to provide the external climate that will be necessary for accom¬ plishing the purposes of the course. It will be up to you to provide the internal cli¬ mate most conducive to best results. This will involve, on your part, a willingness to look openmindedly at everything that is presented and at all experiences that you have in the course, as well as a willingness to change some of your opinions, atti¬ tudes, and habits that you have cultivated throughout your life, as you begin to view things from a new point of view. Research in the last few years has demonstrated that creative talent can be developed deliberately. It has been shown that you can be taught to recognize and call more deliberately on your creative ability; and you can learn techniques of so doing. The net result for you can be in¬ creased creative productivity. You may ex¬ perience the'same type of result that would occur if a governor were taken from an automobile that had been held to 50 miles an hour; it could now travel 80 or 90. The motor is the same, but the output is quite different. You may find there were gov¬ ernors holding back your creative output. Dr. Alex Osborn emphasizes, “In driving for ideas, don’t drive with your

CREATIVE

PROBLEM-SOLVING

brakes on.” If you are traveling along at 20 miles per hour and someone suddenly shows you there is an emergency brake which is on, and you release it and get a sudden surge of power and greater per¬ formance; if he then shows you that when you press the gas pedal to the floor this throws in a new gear with more power; and if he then shows you how to “gun it a little” when going into a curve to get around faster and safer—he is teaching you the art of driving; and the same car will perform for you as never before. If you learn and practice the art of creative thinking, you may find that the same you, too, will perform as you have never per¬ formed before. You may find as a result of this course that the molecules in your brain will be shaken up a bit; and hopefully, they may never fall back into exactly the same place!

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH ANNUAL CREATIVE PROB¬ LEMSOLVING INSTITUTE at the Uni¬ versity of Buffalo. (Co-sponsored by The Creative Education Foundation.) Institute Objectives Self-Improvement: To enhance indi¬ vidual creative ability. Education: To enable members to teach others to be more creative. Operational Use: To provide oppor¬ tunity to learn the use of proven tech¬ niques for maximum production of ideas and for processing tentative ideas into usable ideas. Leadership: To develop skill in or¬ ganizing and conducting creative problem¬ solving activities. Knowledge: To acquaint members with the latest developments in creative problem-solving, including research con¬ ducted at the University of Buffalo and other major centers of creativity research. Interchange: To provide opportunity

COURSE

AND

INSTITUTE

_J/7

for members to discuss creativity with each other and with recognized authorities. Introduction BY DEAN ROBERT BERNER

The Creative Problem-Solving Insti¬ tute is an eagerly anticipated event on our campus. We at the University of Buffalo are honored to have served as hosts for the seventh consecutive year. We salute the educators, the business, industrial and military leaders, the civic and social agency executives, and the key figures in the fields of health and religion who attended—some 300 in all. They came from most of our fifty United States, as well as from Canada; and from places far distant: Australia, South America, Puerto Rico, Japan and Bermuda. We salute the wholeheartedness of their participation as Institute members and leaders. We salute the lively history of the creative thinking concept, and its progress since those early years when the University of Buffalo initiated creadve problem-solv¬ ing courses. Such courses now extend across the country. We salute the continuing research in creativity here and elsewhere. Its philos¬ ophy, its principles and procedures, are constantly under scrutiny. From that long look comes improvement in today’s meth¬ odologies, increasing their usefulness in tomorrow’s world. We are grateful to the Creative Edu¬ cation Foundation for its moral and finan¬ cial support of these endeavors on our own campus. These printed proceedings briefly re¬ port certain “tangibles” of the Institute; who did and said what, the how and why of the program. But print can neither cap¬ ture nor transmit the quality of enthusi¬ asm, that subtle catalyst which transforms a program into an experience. These are the Institute “intangibles”:

J/2

SIDNEY

J .

PARNES

congeniality, and dedication to a belief; warmly shared exchange of knowledge and viewpoints; mutually thoughtful con¬ sideration of aims achieved, and goals still sought. The Five Programs Five inter-related programs were geared to the needs and interests of Institute members: 1. General Sessions: These were attended by all enrollees. The presentations cov¬ ered developments in creative educa¬ tion; philosophy of creativity; explana¬ tion of specific steps in creative prob¬ lem-solving. Thus the Sessions provided orientation for the Course-Sessions. 2. Course-Sessions: These were “learn-bydoing” workshops, tied in with the pre¬ ceding General Sessions. Skilled leaders personally assisted participants in crea¬ tively processing their practice problems. 3. Convocation Seminars: These were at¬ tended by those who had completed previous Institutes. The program mainly comprised advanced study of the the¬ ories and practice of creativity. 4. Supplementary Seminars: Seventeen leaders in various fields conducted 22 morning and evening sessions dealing with the use of creativity in several settings: education, government, busi¬ ness, industry, technology. These Semi¬ nars were featured by informality and by liveliness of audience participation. 5. Instructor Development Program: This newly initiated course was designed for leaders in creativity programs. The pro¬ gram consisted of training sessions and all-day laboratory experience in teach¬ ing creative problem-solving courses. General Sessions GENERAL SESSION NO. I MONDAY, JUNE 26 (a.M.)

Dean Robert F. Berner of Millard Fillmore College, University of Buffalo, presided.

Dr. Clifford C. Furnas, Chancellor, University of Buffalo, welcomed Institute members. Dr. Alex F. Osborn, founder and Chairman of the Board of the Creative Education Foundation, reviewed recent de¬ velopments in creative education. He set forth the main objectives of the Creative Education Foundation as fol¬ lows: 1. To facilitate establishment of separate courses in creative problem-solving. 2. To encourage incorporation of creative principles and procedures into existing courses. 3. To help bring about a more creative type of teaching in all subjects—a type of teaching which will combine think¬ ing effort with learning effort. Dr. Osborn emphasized the two car¬ dinal principles of idea-finding which he summed up in these words: You can think up almost twice as many good ideas (in the same length of time) if you defer judgment until after you have created an adequate checklist of possible leads to solution. “The more ideas you think up, the more likely you are to arrive at the poten¬ tially best leads to solution.” Concerning the validity of the re¬ search which confirmed these principles, Dr. Osborn cited scientific reports appearing in several journals of the American Psychological Association. As to the deferment-of-judgment prin¬ ciple, he cited the research which has shown that 90% more good ideas can be thought up within the same length of time when this principle is followed than when judgment is permitted concurrently to jam imagination. As to the quantity-breeds-quality principle, he cited the research which has shown that 78% more good ideas are made available in the second half than in the first half of total idea output. As to the teachability of creative prob¬ lem-solving, Dr. Osborn cited the research

CREATIVE

PROBLEM-SOLVING

which has shown that, on the average, those who have taken courses in this sub¬ ject can think up 94% more good ideas on the task assigned, in the same length of time, than those who have not taken such a course but are otherwise compara¬ ble. [See Selection 3.] At the conclusion of General Session No. 1, Dr. Sidney J. Parnes, Institute Di¬ rector and Director of Creative Education, University of Buffalo, outlined the five programs which the Institute comprised.

GENERAL SESSION NO. 2 MONDAY, JUNE 26 (a.M.)

Dr. Parnes presided. Dr. Lee H. Bristol, Jr., Bristol-Myers Company, President of the Creative Edu¬ cation Foundation, spoke on “Overcoming Obstacles to Creative Thinking.” By means of audience participation, Dr. Bristol provided a self-demonstration of the principle of deferred judgment. Before stressing that principle, the speaker led individual and group exercises in the production of ideas. Then he asked the audience, “Were your ideas in general more conventional than unique?” Receiving an affirmative response, Dr. Bristol asked the members to analyze reasons they had not been as original as they might have been. Over-concern about their ideas was revealed as the key inhibit¬ ing factor. In another experiment, Dr. Bristol asked audience members to produce ideas without judging them in any way. He then suggested that this list be compared with the initial list. There was general agreement that the second list contained more ideas and that these were more in¬ teresting and potentially more valuable. “The increase in production of good ideas under the principle of ‘deferred judg¬ ment,’ ” said Dr. Bristol, “is probably due to freedom from anxiety about our ideas. Thus we have learned that our creative

COURSE

AND

INSTITUTE

potential may be greater than we have thought it to be.” Dr. Bristol warned against merely ap¬ proaching problems in terms of their ob¬ vious environments and urged that more people try to look “outside their own fields for ideas to borrow and apply to their own. After all,” he said, “isn’t this the mark of a creative person: that he can detect rela¬ tionships in the seemingly unrelated?” After a demonstration of a group brainstorming panel in action, Dr. Bristol stressed the fact that creative evaluation of ideas should follow any and all idea-find¬ ing sessions. He called tentative ideas “dia¬ monds in the rough,” which always need to be creatively processed into valuable ideas. Ele ended his presentation by quot¬ ing Charles Kettering: “The typical eye overlooks the 90% good in an idea be¬ cause it never fails to see the 10% bad.” Dr. ]ames E. Gates: The next subject was “The Creative Process—Difficulties, Techniques, Opportunities.” This was dis¬ cussed by Dr. James E. Gates, Dean, School of Business Administration, Uni¬ versity of Georgia. Asserting that “there are no right ways of doing things, only better ways,” Dr. Gates said that the best way to do things remains to be discovered. He told listeners that curiosity about the universe is the whole secret of crea¬ tivity; thus “questions are of special sig¬ nificance in its exercise.” Dr. Gates presented “The Golden Key to Problem-Solving” a series of slides out¬ lining the principles and procedures of creative thinking. He pointed out that the slides and their accompanying script had been especially designed by Dr. Alex F. Osborn for the orientation of those about to take a course in creative problem-solv¬ ing, or those about to participate in group brainstorming. (The slides and script of “The Golden Key to Problem-Solving” are available through the Creative Education Founda-

SIDNEY

J .

PARNES

tion, 1614 Rand Building, Buffalo 3, New York.) GENERAL SESSION NO. 3 TUESDAY, JUNE 27 (a.M.)

Welles V. Moot, Trustee of the Crea¬ tive Education Foundation, presided. Dr. Parnes conducted an audience participation session, “The Creative Ap¬ proach—Fact-Finding, Problem-Finding, Idea-Finding, and Solution-Finding.” This teaching demonstration took the Institute members, as students, through the entire creative problem-solving process as applied to a specific problem. Its purpose was to set the stage for procedures to be practiced in subsequent Course-Sessions. Using illuminated charts, Dr. Parnes presented a particular case-problem. “Before we can even state the problem for creative attack,” he said, “we must make a mental review of facts available, and information we’d like to have about the problem. “And problem-finding,” he added, “demands that we identify correctly the real problem, the crux of the situation.” The audience then made suggestions as to problems implicit in the case cited. Idea-finding in a search for leads to solutions revealed the principle of deferred judgment, which Dr. Parnes called “ef¬ fective in both group and solo thinking.” Accumulating a quantity of ideas, he said, is also important. “The 7th, or 17th, or 47th idea may not provide a good lead toward a solution, but your 77th idea may be just what you’re looking for.”

to “acceptance-finding” which calls for con¬ structing a plan of action for securing acceptance of a solution and putting it into effect. The speaker concluded by pointing out that the entire problem-solving process would be followed in the Course-Sessions where each participant would creatively attack problems of his own choosing.

GENERAL SESSION NO. 4 WEDNESDAY, JUNE

28

(a.M.)

Whitworth Ferguson, President, Fer¬ guson Electric Construction Company, Trustee of the Creative Education Foun¬ dation, presided. Professor Leo B. Moore, School of In¬ dustrial Management, Massachusetts In¬ stitute of Technology, spoke on “Creative Action—Evaluation, Development and Use of Ideas.” Using a chalk-talk technique, Profes¬ sor Moore illustrated effective methods of idea evaluation and development, remind¬ ing his listeners that it is not enough to evolve potentially good ideas. “It is choos¬ ing and using ideas that counts.” The need for U.S. leaders to meet the competition in world markets was pointed out by Professor Moore. “Applying the principles developed by the Creative Education Foundation, the managers of the nation should be able to exploit their resources more fully.”

Incubation as an aid to problem¬ solving was emphasized. “The subcon¬ scious can help a lot if and when a prob¬ lem is allowed to ‘simmer.’ ”

Stating that people “don’t resist change, they resist being changed,” Pro¬ fessor Moore urged managers to use par¬ ticipation techniques so as to “get their people involved in change.” He added: “There may be change without improve¬ ment, but no improvement without change. “We need to stop depending on some¬ one else to solve our problems,” said Pro¬ fessor Moore. 1 Let us do it ourselves.

With the active participation of the audience, Dr. Parnes creatively attacked a typical problem through all the steps up

"We are now in a race for the future. We cannot come in second.” [See Selection 26.]

The establishment of “criteria” as a means for judging ideas was stressed, and then demonstrated to the group.

CREATIVE

PROBLEM-SOLVING

GENERAL SESSION NO. 5 WEDNESDAY, JUNE 28 (p.M.)

This final general session, presided over by Dr. Parnes, was in the nature of a summary on the topic “The Creative Challenge—Your Experiences at the Insti¬ tute, and Your Future.” Dr. Osborn spoke first, pointing out that the idea of deliberately using one’s imagination was probably new to many members. He said: “You have learned new methodologies here; but, far more importantly, you have acquired new attitudes which should enrich your life, day in and day out.” In his closing remarks Dr. Bristol said, “No Institute could hope to give a person all the ABC’s of problem-solving, but we hope we have at least whetted your appetite to look into the subject further and to make these techniques your own. All power to you as you go out to try to do just that!” Members were asked by Dr. Bristol to keep the Foundation informed about their creative activities. “We are most in¬ terested in learning what you do to put into action the principles and procedures you have learned at this Institute.” Dr. Parnes called for questions, most of which related to plans for the next In¬ stitute. In Dean Berner’s concluding com¬ ments, he thanked the many who had contributed to the successful conduct of the Institute.

COURSE

AND

INSTITUTE

J/5

arate location. Each of these course groups was organized into five sub-sections of eight registrants each. Allocation was based on background, interests and needs. The categories included: Management . . . Industrial Relations . . . Personnel . . . Training . . . Technology . . . Re¬ search . . . Engineering . . . Marketing . . . Foremen and Supervisors . . . Edu¬ cators . . . Potential Instructors of Crea¬ tive Problem-Solving Courses . , . Con¬ ference Planners . . . Church, Civic and Social Service . . . Military . . . Govern¬ mental. Each of the five course groups had its own faculty consisting of a skilled In¬ structor, an Associate Instructor and five experienced Table Leaders. These staff members were also available for out-ofsession consultation and coaching. Course Instructors: ]. Bruce Buckler of Rogers, Slade & Hill. Formerly Director of Creative Prob¬ lem-Solving Courses at I.B.M. . . . Joseph G. Mason of Batten, Barton, Durstine & Osborn, Inc. Author of How to Be a More Creative Executive (McGraw-Hill) . . . Whitt N. Schultz of Illinois Bell Telephone Company. Instructor of Crea¬ tive Problem-Solving Courses at North¬ western University . . . William A. Stoc\field of the H. J. Heinz Company. Introduced Creative Thinking Courses throughout the Heinz organization . . . Robert J. Pieman of Better Homes & Gardens. Instructor of Creative ProblemSolving Courses at Drake University.

Course-Sessions Program This, the basic program, presented a condensed equivalent of the creative prob¬ lem-solving course developed and con¬ ducted at the University of Buffalo during the past twelve years. The newly revised Student Workbook served as a guide throughout the Course Sessions. The participants were those who were attending their first Institute. They were divided into five sections, each in a sep¬

Associate Instructors: Angelo M. Biondi. Associate Instruc¬ tor of Creative Problem-Solving Courses at University of Buffalo . . . Harold F. Simmonds of Westinghouse Electric Cor¬ poration. Leader in Battelle Memorial Institute Creativity Clinic . . . C. K. Turman. Management Consultant. Di¬ rected Creative Problem-Solving Program at Gary Works of U.S. Steel Corporation

gl6

SIDNEY

J.

PARNES

. . . Bruce Whiting of Westinghouse Elec¬ tric Corporation. Teaches Adult Education Courses in Creative Thinking . . . R. Q. Wilson of Battelle Memorial Institute. Director of Battelle Memorial Institute Creativity Programs. Table Leaders: Anthony Angley, Educational Con¬ sultant . . . Dere\ L. M. Castle, Execu¬ tive Training Centre, Australia . . . Rich¬ ard A. Connor, Jr., New York Telephone Company . . . Glenn R. Cowan, B. F. Goodrich Company . . . James Camming, Boeing Airplane Company . . . Dr. Fran\ E. Dawe, Board of Education, St. Cath¬ arines, Ont. . . . Major Bert J. Decker, Strategic Air Command . . . Karl Feiertag, General Electric Company . . . Ed¬ ward J. Ferguson, American Cyanamid Company . . . Austin McC. Fox, The Nichols School . . . Jennie Graham, The University of Buffalo . . . Stephen D. Hibbs, The Nichols School . . . Weddie W. Huffman, Burlington Industries . . . Lt. Colonel William H. Hunt, U.S. Army (retired) . . . Louise Kingman, Boston University . . . Edna Lindemann, State University of New York College of Edu¬ cation . . . Gordon A. MacLeod, Hodg¬ son, Russ, Andrews, Woods & Goodyear . . . Lt. Colonel Lawrence P. MacQueen, U.S. Army Management School . . . Clayton G. Orcutt, University of Wiscon¬ sin .. . James O. Proctor, Baltimore Pub¬ lic Schools . . . John F. Sallada, Jr., Sealtest Foods Division . . . LeRoy Schneider, Schneider Oil Company, Inc. . . . A. D. Seitz, Charles Morris Price School . . . Roger S. West, Veterans Administration . . . Milton Wi\sell, Michigan State Uni¬ versity. COURSE SESSION NO. I MONDAY, JUNE 26 (p.M.)

Idea-Finding Techniques: This Ses¬ sion featured a variety of procedures for deliberate idea-finding, including Individ¬

ual and Group Brainstorming . . . At¬ tribute Listing . . . Check-list Procedures . . . Forced Relationship Techniques . . . Morphological Analysis . . . variations and combinations of the above. After each technique was covered, course members took part in exercises il¬ lustrating use of that technique. Emphasis was put on the fact that all these techniques are “supplemental tools” for the production of unique and useful ideas. Stress was also placed on the value of the deferment-of-judgment principle dur¬ ing the ideation period, whether in indi¬ vidual effort or in group collaboration. COURSE SESSION NO. 2 MONDAY, JUNE 26 (p.M.)

Problem-Census: Each Table Group listed, analyzed and defined problems of special interest to that group—problems to which creative procedures could be effec¬ tively applied. After each sub-group had chosen one problem, a start was made toward prepar¬ ing this for creative attack. COURSE SESSION NO. 3 TUESDAY, JUNE 27 (a.M.)

Group Collaboration: This session was devoted to the application of the crea¬ tive problem-solving process to group prac¬ tice problems. Each Table Group processed the problem selected on the previous after¬ noon. Participants followed the procedures which had been demonstrated in the pre¬ ceding General Session: 1. Defining the problem so as to insure maximum possibility of solution. 2. Separating the major problem into its various components. 3.

Differentiating between problem areas requiring analysis, and those calling for creative attack.

4. Idea-finding under various approaches to problems, adhering to the defermentof-judgment principle.

CREATIVE

PROBLEM-SOLV ING

5. Making decisions as to tentative solu¬ tions and their implementation. A review and evaluation of the foregoing work concluded this session. COURSE SESSION NO. 4 TUESDAY, JUNE 27 (p.M.)

Participant’s Problem: Each member began preparation of his own specific prob¬ lem for creative attack in accordance with the principles and procedures outlined and practiced the previous Session. Members learned when, and when not to use team or group assistance during various stages of creative problem-solving. Likewise they learned how best to prepare for and lead the group sessions. Opportunity was provided for each member to work alone, in teams, and in groups. The self-demonstration method thus employed drove home the value and methodology of deliberate and intensive creative effort. At the end of this Session, each par¬ ticipant’s problem was separately brain¬ stormed by his Table Group. For this purpose, separate rooms were provided for each of the 25 sub-sections. COURSE SESSION NO. 5 WEDNESDAY, JUNE 28 (a.M.)

Creative Follow-Through: This Ses¬ sion featured incubation, synthesis, evalua¬ tion and development of ideas. Participants learned the value and use of incubation in creative problem-solving. Each had the opportunity to practice synthesis and crea¬ tive evaluation on his own problem. During this Session individuals and teams developed criteria for evaluation of tentative solutions of their own problems. COURSE SESSION NO. 6 WEDNESDAY, JUNE 28 (p.M.)

Presentation and Application: Each participant developed plans for creative presentation and application of the arrived-at solutions to his own problem.

COURSE

AND

INSTITUTE

JIJ

This completed the cycle from defini¬ tion of the member’s own problem, to final application of the best solutions. To gain practice in overcoming ob¬ stacles to the acceptance of solutions, mem¬ bers took part in a role-playing session. Certain enrollees were asked to raise “ob¬ jections” to suggested solutions; others were asked to suggest how these objec¬ tions could be overcome. Roles were then reversed. Thus each participant gained first¬ hand experience in carrying through the creative problem-solving process on a problem of his own choosing. Convocation Program This Convocation of Leaders was at¬ tended by about 50 who had learned the fundamentals of creative problem-solving in previous Institutes. They therefore were primarily interested in advanced phases of the subject, as well as in sharpening their problem-solving skills through fur¬ ther practice. Accordingly the Convocation program gave opportunities for: 1. Further study of advanced topics, in¬ cluding research. 2. Further exchange of viewpoints and experience. 3. Further practice in problem-solving. (The suggested theme was: “Individ¬ ual Responsibility to Our Country.”) Dean Berner served as Convocation Chairman, with Allan M. Darroch, Super¬ visor of Training of Loblaw, Inc., as As¬ sociate Chairman. Coordinators were: Jo¬ sephine E. Mitchell and Ruth Cottringer of the Veterans Administration, and Mrs. Rivera Holmes, Amherst Central Adult School. CONVOCATION SEMINAR NO. I MONDAY, JUNE 26 (a.M.)

Dean Berner greeted participants. Mr. Darroch moderated a round-table report on “What’s New With Me,” during which

J/8

SIDNEY

J .

PARNES

members introduced themselves and gave thumbnail sketches of recent activities in the creative thinking field. The plan of the Convocation sessions was then briefed by Mr. Darroch. A question-and-answer period followed. CONVOCATION SEMINAR NO. 2 MONDAY, JUNE 26 (p.M.)

Convocation participants were divided into five groups. Each group then formu¬ lated and attacked problems implicit in this sentence from President Kennedy’s Inaugural Address: “Ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.” Dr. Calvin Taylor: The entire Con¬ vocation then reconvened for a presenta¬ tion by Dr. Calvin W. Taylor, Professor of Psychology and Principal Investigator, National Science Foundation Creativity Research Conferences, University of Utah. Concerning the NSF-sponsored re¬ search conferences on the identification of creative scientific talent, Dr. Taylor said that three chief topics of current research were these: (i) Identification of talent— moving it back into a child’s life as early as possible; (2) Study of training and climate under which creativity thrives; (3) Analysis of a person’s “creative con¬ tribution”—discovering how you can de¬ termine to what degree it can be said you are creative. On this point, Dr. Taylor commented: “Leaders are sometimes so far ahead of the crowd that their ideas are not recognized as creative for several generations.” Dr. Taylor described current tests for the measurement of ability in human communications, because “any time a per¬ son is creative, he has to express some¬ thing.” In regard to a recent study of spaceagency scientists, Dr. Taylor called the biographical information index the “most promising single device in linking people to creativity.”

Comparing “grade-getting” character¬ istics with “creative” characteristics, Dr. Taylor speculated on the hypothesis that characteristics called for by the schools are not the same as those important on the job. “The research worker,” he said, “needs to move knowledge ahead, rather than master old knowledge.” Textbooks which give the impression that all answers are in the book, with no new ones to be discovered, may prove discouraging to some students. “Perhaps,” the speaker commented, “classroom time should be set up with the first half of the period dealing with what has already been done; the second, with what’s ahead.” The possible value of brainstorming in teaching new techniques was mentioned by Dr. Taylor. He also touched upon the opportunity to discover the characteristics of the persons who perform best in brain¬ storming groups, thus using brainstorm¬ ing as an indicator of those who will later excel in creative achievement. [See Selection 15.] CONVOCATION SEMINAR NO. 3 TUESDAY, JUNE 27 (a.M.)

After a discussion of “Progress in Problem-Processing,” the chairmen of the five sub-groups reported the problems they had chosen. These were: 1. “How can I develop an action-centered approach to my individual, moral, physical and mental discipline?” 2. “In what ways can I, as an indivdual, motivate and develop a greater sense of responsibility for the conservation and development of our human re¬ sources ? ” 3. “How can I exercise my responsibility for improving American prestige?” 4. “How can I help build powerful moti¬ vation into myself and others to push this country forward in integrity and example ? ” 5. “What can I do to unleash the creative

CREATIVE

PROBLEM-SOLVING

power of our people to develop an image of the United States as champion of human dignity and individual rights?” The sub-groups then met in separate rooms where they conducted brainstorm¬ ing and established evaluative criteria for later use in the selection and development of the ideas produced. CONVOCATION SEMINAR NO. 4 TUESDAY, JUNE 27 (p.M.)

Convocation participants met in their respective sub-groups to evaluate ideas produced and stenographically recorded at the previous session. They evolved tentative plans for put¬ ting into effect those ideas which they deemed most useful and unique. Charles S. Whiting: “The Creative Conversation” was then presented by Charles S. Whiting, Creative Training Associates, Author of Creative Thinking (Reinhold). In this slide presentation, Mr. Whit¬ ing discussed the entire creative process as a “conversation between the individual and his environment.” Likening our minds to “private worlds,” with illusions and bits of infor¬ mation accumulated here and there, he stated that the conversation goes on con¬ tinually in our sub-conscious, “stimulated by what we see and hear, and how we feel.” The creative person was described by the speaker as “programmed less rigidly than the average person, prone to assign higher value to freewheeling speculation. “There is,” he said, “a need for two kinds of discipline in thinking: the disci¬ pline of logic, and the rational use of the irrational.” He called change in mood-level a concomitant to creative endeavor: excite¬ ment, enthusiasm, inspiration. Mr. Whiting invited the group to take part in a demonstration of what he

COURSE

AND

INSTITUTE

J/9

termed “mechanical aids to free specula¬ tion.” These consisted of exercises and ap¬ proaches now used effectively in business and industry. CONVOCATION SEMINAR NO. 5 WEDNESDAY, JUNE

28

(a.M.)

Each table group reported on its progress with the Convocation prob¬ lem. Leaders reviewed modes of attack, general approaches, and categories. They also summarized the selecdon of poten¬ tially useful ideas, with suggestions for their implementation. Dr. Ross L. Mooney: A series of lab¬ oratory demonstrations was then pre¬ sented under the title of “Perception and Creation” by Dr. Ross L. Mooney, Pro¬ fessor of Education, The Ohio State Uni¬ versity. Dr. Mooney held up a lump of coal, and asked that his audience consider its potentialities: “It has over 200,000 prod¬ ucts in it. “If we are to build a science of man, we will have to see him the same way, with respect to his potentialities. “Yet,” continued Dr. Mooney, “many of us do not generally believe in the in¬ trinsic potentiality of man as a creative being.” Defining perception as the “full sweep of man’s orderly psychological engage¬ ment with his environment,” Dr. Mooney drew an illustration symbolizing the es¬ sential conditions for man’s existence in the universe. Explaining that his demonstrations were “illusions,” Dr. Mooney used pin¬ points of light in a darkened room to illustrate a phenomenon in perception: the autokinetic effect. Ele noted that “the light which seems to move, though it is sta¬ tionary” poses a problem for Navy men during blackouts aboard ship. Dr. Mooney also described the R. M. Wolfe experiment in autokinetic effect

po

SIDNEY

J .

PARNES

which compared the reactions of mentally disturbed and normal subjects. “To the normal person,” said Dr. Mooney, “it was all right that he be in on the cause of what was happening; but life to the ill person was ‘controlled’ by outside sources.” In another demonstration, different lengths of light beams were seen first as simple rays, then as telephone poles, then as telephone pole and fence post, then as telephone poles with a hill between. “These prove,” said Dr. Mooney, “that we see with ideas in mind, and what we perceive will change with what we hold in mind.” Dr. Mooney provided several other laboratory demonstrations to illustrate the relationship between perception and crea¬ tion. [See Selection 7.] CONVOCATION SEMINAR NO. 6 WEDNESDAY, JUNE

28

(p.M.)

This session opened with Dr. Mooney as moderator of questions and discussion regarding his presentation of “Perception and Creation.” A high degree of audience interest was indicated by the sharpness of the questions and the liveliness of the discussion. George Eckstein: “Handling Yourself and Your Ideas as a Creative Person,” was then presented by George R. Eckstein, Research Associate, Remington Arms Company. “Creativity is God-given; born into each of us,” declared the speaker. “It is not an oddity, but rather a naturalness, long neglected. “The creative individual,” said Mr. Eckstein, “must be self-accepting. Others already recognize him as creative—now he must see himself in that way, with all the responsibilities it brings.” These responsibilities, the speaker added, are to himself, his associates, his work, and his family; to his community, and the larger world outside.

Furthermore, added Mr. Eckstein, the creative person must cultivate the “con¬ fidence he needs for getting into trouble. “Creative thinking solves problems,” he stated, “but in another sense it also helps create new ones.” When a person produces a new idea, it creates the problem of gaining its ac¬ ceptance by others. Even with the tremendous advances in business and technology, there are still areas where management decrees the 20year-old method as the “only sensible way” of doing things. As a device to insure acceptance of an idea by an associate, he recommended a “hole in the doughnut” approach. “Take your idea to him, but not in its finished form. Leave a hole in it so big he can’t fail to see it. Chances are, he will offer to supply the missing information, gadget, or idea. Then it becomes not your idea,” said Mr. Eckstein, “but our idea. Because he has had a part in it, he is more likely to accept.” Conclusion: A question-and-answer period followed Mr. Eckstein’s presenta¬ tion. Then the members individually did further work on Convocation problems. Associate Chairman Darroch then sum¬ marized the three-day program, and Dean Berner officially adjourned the Convoca¬ tion. Supplementary Program Practically all those who participated in the Course-Sessions program and in the Convocation program also took advantage of the Seminars conducted at 8 A.M. and at 8 P.M. Many enrollees were hard at it for more than 12 hours a day. Eighteen Seminars were conducted concurrently on Monday and Tuesday evenings and on Tuesday and Wednesday mornings. Some were presented in two parts, in order to give participants the benefit of a wider choice. All Seminars were kept informal so as

CREATIVE

PROBLEM-SOLVING

to encourage discussion, questions and an¬ swers. This series was of special interest to educators, training directors and educational executives in organizations. “How I Conduct Creative ProblemSolving Courses”—Conducted by William O. Uraneck, Division Training Manager, Raytheon Company. Part I of this Semi¬ nar covered the rationale of such courses —their planning, conduct and evaluation —with case studies based on experience in colleges and industry. Part II covered the formulation and use of effective exercises, with attention to their value in student motivation. education seminars:

“Creativity and the Army Manager” —Conducted by Colonel W. W. Culp, Commandant, U.S. Army Management School. Attitudes, habits and skills of the successful manager were discussed. This Seminar highlighted a description of the recent three-day Creative Problem-Solving Seminar conducted at the U.S. Army Management School. Charts were shown to illustrate the reaction to this Seminar on the part of the key military leaders who attended. “Research in Creative Thinking; and Selection and Testing of Creative People” —Conducted by Dr. Calvin W. Taylor, Director of National Science Foundation Sponsored Research Conferences on the Identification of Creative Scientific Tal¬ ent, University of Utah. Part I included reports of research at the University of Utah and elsewhere, with an overview of varied projects in the field of creativity re¬ search. Part II underlined newest meth¬ ods of testing for creativity, with empha¬ sis upon applicability to specific situations. [See Selection 15.] “How to Integrate Creative Think¬ ing Principles and Procedures into Aca¬ demic Courses or Training Programs”— Conducted by Dr. fere W. Clark, Asso¬ ciate Professor of Economics, University of Chattanooga. This Seminar covered

COURSE

AND

INSTITUTE

J2I

the why and how of such creatively mod¬ ified courses, with case histories from Harvard and elsewhere. “Why We Made Creative ProblemSolving a Requirement at Webber Col¬ lege”—Conducted by Dr. Paul C. Staake, President of Webber. Effects of creative climate on student and faculty, in classwork and in outside activities, provided the basis for this firsthand report. Con¬ crete evidence of the constructive influ¬ ence on instructional techniques was cited. “New Light on Teaching Machines, Programmed Instruction, and Creative Thinking"—Conducted by Major Bert J. Decker, Strategic Air Command. This slide presentation covered the scope of the teaching machine movement and princi¬ ples, and spelled out the two basic meth¬ ods of constructed response and multiple choice. The Seminar dealt also with scien¬ tific incremental programming and its ef¬ fect on creativity in educational processes. “Planning Institutes, Workshops, and Other Educational Creative Problem-Solv¬ ing Programs”-—Conducted by Dr. James E. Gates, Dean of Business Administra¬ tion, University of Georgia. Long-term and short-term programs, appropriate to different settings, were described in this Seminar, with suggestions regarding con¬ tent, teaching methods, program, person¬ nel selection, evaluation and physical ar¬ rangements. “Parameters of Creativity”—Con¬ ducted by Joseph G. Mason, Batten, Bar¬ ton, Durstine & Osborn, Inc., Author of How to Be a More Creative Executive (McGraw-Hill). This slide presentation was highlighted by a survey of the psy¬ chological background underlying creative techniques and methods taught during the Institute. Mental faculties and thought processes were discussed, with special at¬ tention to the creative person and his in¬ fluence in human affairs. BUSINESS

AND

TECHNOLOGY

SEMINARS:

This series was of particular significance to line and staff executives in business and

J22

SIDNEY

J .

PARNES

industry, particularly those in charge of Research and Development. “Creative Thinking in Sales Train¬ ing”—Conducted by Cloyd S. Steinmetz, Training Director, Reynolds Metals Com¬ pany. The application of creative princi¬ ples to problems of time, cost, product development, idea presentation and pro¬ motion was the theme of this Seminar. “Creativity at General Electric and Other Industries”—Conducted by Karl M. Feiertag, Designer, Advanced Engi¬ neering Development, General Electric Company. The GE program was described and results cited. Effects of training in creative problem-solving there and else¬ where were discussed in terms of person¬ nel, company climate, research and de¬ velopment. “How to Manage and Develop Crea¬ tive Engineers and Scientists; and Han¬ dling Yourself and Your Ideas as a Crea¬ tive Person”—Conducted by George R. Eckstein, Research Associate, Remington Arms Company. Part I of this Seminar dealt with the relationship of manage¬ ment to research, with special attention to such topics as aims of research, and the role of the supervisor as a creative coach. Part II was concerned with the attitudes and characteristics of the creative person, including his responsibility to himself and to society. “Ideas—The Heart of Research”— Conducted by Dean D. Crandell, VicePresident of Research, National Gypsum Company. The philosophy of research and its implications was the focal point of this Seminar, with emphasis on source, scope, priority and control of ideas. techniques seminars : This series dealt with techniques in problem-solving and their application in a variety of set¬ tings.

“A Morphological Approach to Crea¬ tive Writing”—Conducted by Fran Striker, King Features Syndicate. Use of creative principles in writing was the

theme of this two-part Seminar. Part I emphasized the handling of essential ele¬ ments such as character, goal, obstacle and solution. In Part II, the participants applied creative principles by actually plotting short stories. “Creativity in Design”—Conducted by Victor }. Papanek, Professor of Indus¬ trial Design, State University of New York College of Education, Buffalo. This slide presentation, in two parts, featured working models of advanced design, with special emphasis upon technological re¬ search developments important to national security. “New Developments in Specific Cre¬ ative Techniques”—Conducted by Charles S. Whiting, Creative Training Associates, Author of Creative Thinking (Reinhold), assisted by Dr. Myron S. Allen, Technical Service Research, Inc. This Seminar pro¬ vided an overview of techniques, evaluat¬ ing their appropriateness in different situ¬ ations. Among topics covered in this twopart session were brainstorming, morpho¬ logical analysis, attribute listing, forced relationship procedures, and checklists. “How 1 Conducted a TV Series on Creative Thinking”—Conducted by LeRoy Schneider, President, Schneider Oil Company. Development of a TV program on creativity, and its impact on viewers, was the theme of this Seminar. Script content and promotional ideas were also covered. Instructor Development Program This newly initiated five-day course, the Instructor Development Program, was conducted for an invited group of 30 members who had attended previous institutes, and who had taught or who de¬ sired to teach. The purposes were: 1. To provide a review and evaluation of established methods, materials and techniques in the teaching of creative problem-solving. 2. To provide opportunity for improving

CREATIVE

PROBLEM-SOLVING

teaching skills by means of participa¬ tion as Table Leaders in the CourseSessions of the Institute. The program consisted of two all-day workshops led by Dr. Parnes, plus three days of laboratory exercise supervised by Course Instructors. All day Sunday, June 25, the Instruc¬ tor Development Program members re¬ ceived advanced training in Creative Problem-Solving methodologies and prac¬ ticed them under the guidance of the Institute’s Course Instructors. During the next three days, the In¬ structor Development Program members gained firsthand experience as Table Lead¬ ers in the Course-Sessions of the Institute. Periodic conferences were held by Course Instructors. The fifth day was devoted to an in¬ tensive evaluation of the entire CourseSession Program of the Institute. This workshop covered questions such as: 1. “What difficulties did we experience?” 2. “What should we further clarify?” 3. “How could we improve the effective¬ ness of our instruction?” 4. “In what ways could we carry over this teaching experience into our yearround activities?” 5. “What adaptations might we make in teaching Creative Problem-Solving in our own organizations?” In these sessions, an Instructor or As¬ sociate Instructor served as moderator for each team of Table Leaders. Dr. Parnes concluded by moderating a general dis¬ cussion, and Dean Berner then awarded Certificates of Completion to the members of this Instructor Development Program. Creative Leadership Council On Sunday evening, June 25, the Creative Education Foundation gave a dinner for the Institute leaders. Dr. Bris¬

COURSE

AND

INSTITUTE

tol presided. Chancellor Furnas, Dr. Os¬ born, Dean Berner and Dr. Parnes spoke. As president of the Creative Educa¬ tion Foundation, Dr. Bristol announced the formation of the Creative Leadership Council, with members selected on the basis of “special education in creative thinking (including participation in at least two Creative Problem-Solving In¬ stitutes at the University of Buffalo), and subsequent demonstration of ability to further the Foundation’s purpose of help¬ ing education to do more to develop crea¬ tivity.” Citations were read for the eighty new members of the Council. Posthumous awards were made to Michael Montmore of the Veterans Administration and Fred A. Denz of Remington Rand. The widows of these two men were present to accept the certificates. Dr. Bristol emphasized that member¬ ship in the Leadership Council will be enlarged as time goes on. “For this rea¬ son,” he said, “it is vital that the Creative Education Foundation be aware of your activities in our field.” He added, “Know¬ ing what you are doing helps us to pass the word along to others who may profit from what you have done.” He pointed out that the Creative Leadership Council fulfills an important purpose in recognizing the efforts of those who have done most to advance the cause of creativity. In the course of his remarks, Dr. Bristol paid tribute to the Founder and Chairman of the Creative Education Foundation, Dr. Alex F. Osborn. “What deep satisfaction it must be to you, Alex, to realize how many lives your life has touched through your books, articles, talks, letters, and above all, your example! Many people live different lives today because of you!

Selection 28 HARRY L. HANSEN

THE COURSE IN CREATIVE MARKETING STRATEGY AT HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL

the selection

below

was prepared for the Fourth Annual Creative

Problem-Solving Institute at the University of Buffalo in June 1958. The author is professor of Marketing at Harvard University. His article de¬ scribes the conduct of the Creative Marketing Strategy course at Harvard Business School and tells of the practical approaches that have evolved in integrating creative problem-solving principles and procedures into a

marketing course. The adaptation of brainstorming as described is

especially suggestive. We call to the attention of teachers the “Firo” or Fundamental In¬ terpersonal Relations Orientation, i.e., values of putting groups together “by recognizing the personality traits of individual students” as explained in the book Firo: A Three Dimensional Theory of Interpersonal Be¬ havior by William C. Schutz, New York, Rinehart, 1958.

325

J26

HARRY

L.

HANSEN

People engaged in administrative work know that obtaining the intuitive and enthusiastic understanding of ideas among their fellow workers is not easy. How often do we recognize others (let alone ourselves!) as having left meetings where their thoughts, if not their words, were negative. The psychologist may re¬ fine and explain these views. At the mo¬ ment, all we need do is to admit to the existence of these attitudes. Too often it appears that the develop¬ ment of a highly critical sense is taken as the mark of a highly trained intellectual power. To many people, the ideal intellect is the one which finds and describes prob¬ lems, points to difficulties, visualizes com¬ plexities, expresses doubt and concern about the outcome of future events. Now there is no doubt that this turn of mind is important to progress; but, in its finest development, this type of mind must also turn toward the solution of problems. BRAINSTORMING How can our potential for creative problem-solving be increased? Group brainstorming is one way, but only one way. And there is more than one way to brainstorm. If I may interpret Alex Osborn’s philosophy, I believe it is something of this order: “Here is a method that has been found useful. Here are some generaliza¬ tions, based on experience, as to how to use this method. Now this method will not solve all problems. But why not try it? After you try it, you may find better rules for using it. But until you do, why not use ours as a beginning?” There never is one method which will best meet all problems. But, there is no reason why a particular method must be excluded from use because it does not fit every case. Not all problems must be ap¬ proached by brainstorming. Nevertheless

there are but few problems which cannot be edged closer to solution by people of understanding sitting down with each other and discussing possible solutions in a constructive and positive manner. Fur¬ thermore, the more freely and easily these people can work with each other, the more possible it becomes for them to think up unconventional and usable leads to solutions.

COURSE DESCRIPTION Brainstorming is one of the features of the course named Creative Marketing Strategy which we inaugurated at the Har¬ vard Business School in the fall of ’56. The catalogue description is as follows: This is a course concerned with the role of marketing in the growth and de¬ velopment of the individual business enter¬ prise. Project work by small groups will constitute a major part of the course, with each group assuming a high degree of administrative responsibility. The word “creative” is used in the course title be¬ cause the emphasis in the course is upon innovation. Although the course centers upon marketing, the solution of marketing problems will often require the considera¬ tion of other aspects of business, for exam¬ ple, product research and development, financial, manufacturing, and procurement problems. The orientation of the course is toward strategic rather than tactical prob¬ lems. Strategic is used here to mean prob¬ lems whose solution will extend over long periods of time and involve major com¬ mitments of company resources. The ap¬ proach of the course, therefore, is at times from the position of the vice president in charge of marketing and at other times from the position of the chief executive or governing boards of the company. Stu¬ dents will be expected to chart future courses of action and develop programs for these companies. Class meetings will take a variety of forms including small group meetings.

COURSE

IN

CREATIVE

MARKETING

In line with that catalogue statement, this course aims to develop architects and designers rather than critics. Granted that a critical sense must be part of the make¬ up of a designer and in turn that the critic must have a creative sense, still it is one thing to design and another thing to criti¬ cize. In conducting this course we seek to further the following stated objective of Harvard’s Master of Business Administra¬ tion program: The ability of a competent adminis¬ trator to put decisions into effect is de¬ pendent in large part on his success in working with people—selecting, training, and developing them into an effective or¬ ganization. To maintain an effective or¬ ganization involves the ability to establish standards; to control and judge perform¬ ance; to exercise leadership and to develop teamwork; and to demonstrate facility in oral and written communication. In order to implement these objectives, we give the students truly current prob¬ lems of business firms and ask the stu¬ dents to develop forward-looking plans of action. We place the men in live adminis¬ tration situations. In other words, the stu¬ dents are grouped in teams which practice the abilities listed above rather than criti¬ cize the practice of others, i.e., the people in the company.

CREATIVITY The use of the term “creative” in the title of the course called for definition. We approached this problem in the first week by asking each man to write, and turn in to us, his ideas concerning the nature of the creative process, the motiva¬ tion for creativity, and the conditions within the individual that he might closely associate with a potentially creative act. In addition, we had several outside speakers who discussed their ideas on these matters.

STRATEGY

AT

HARVARD

J27

We also spoke with the class on the sub¬ ject of the creative process. These sessions were tape-recorded. Here is the gist of these recordings: At the risk of exaggerating differ¬ ences and of implying sharp divisions where these do not exist, let us assume that there are three types of thinking: analysis, judgment, and synthesis. Imme¬ diately semantic problems crowd in on us. Yet the difficulty of definition does not obscure our feeling that we can often in¬ tuitively recognize these different types of thinking. Certainly in the solving of business cases one cannot use any one of these three forms of thinking to the exclusion of the others; yet there are times when one can be dominant. For instance, consider the student who is concerned with constructing a work¬ sheet showing the source and application of funds for a business concern over a period of years. This is an analytical prob¬ lem admitting to only one correct answer. The same student may at another time be concerned with deciding which of two alternative depreciation policies should be adopted. This is a judgment problem. Or the same student may be asked to design a financial structure appropriate for two merging companies. This is a problem of synthesis. But it is apparent that this problem of synthesis must draw upon analytical and judgment skills. Yet the job of synthesis requires more. The joining of two parts to make a new whole is an imaginative and creative act. When we talk about the creative process in this course, this is what we mean, a combining of facts, ideas, or past experiences into a new combination. In customary Business School par¬ lance, we would say that telling the com¬ pany what its problems are is essentially an analytical act; telling the company what to do is a synthetic or creative act. But one cannot analyze without synthesizing or

328

HARRY

L .

HANSEN

synthesize without analyzing; and judg¬ ment is present with both forms of think¬ ing. We believe that the raison d’etre of the Business School is to train creative ad¬ ministrators who, instead of relying upon a patterned problem-solving behavior, bring skills of intellect and imagination to problem-solving. In this sense every course at the Business School shares the objective of training people for creativity. Creative Marketing Strategy differs in the respect that by concentrating the student’s atten¬ tion on the problem of one company, the opportunities for synthesis are greatly en¬ hanced. The emphasis on synthesis means that the student must think with some cogency about how to solve problems, and this has led us gradually to attempt to generalize with students about the prob¬ lem-solving process itself.

PROBLEMS What is a problem? First of all, we can say that problems are always asso¬ ciated with people. People have problems; things do not. Second, we can say that people have problems when they become aware of some actual or potential threat to their status or opinion of themselves. Thus, in this course there were people in companies who had problems (assigned to teams by us) and members of teams who developed problems (personal and organizational and unassigned by us). Sometimes a member of the class would say to us: “This is not a course in marketing- This is a course in group dynamics.” This man had achieved a partial insight into the situation. He was recognizing that there were team problems to be met and that these were very real. On the other hand, his insight was only partial because there was still the marketing or business problem to be solved. Within a few weeks unassigned prob¬ lems were piling up like cord wood, and at the bottom of the cord was the assigned

problem of the company executive. Yet to get at this latter problem, unassigned prob¬ lems of team members had to be removed first. Right here we had a problem (as¬ signed to us by team members). “Had we meant to have this happen?” the students asked. “Because if we did not, we should do something about the situation.” Of course, we had meant to have this happen, and the frustrations of many team mem¬ bers arose because they continued to try to pry out the bottom log without first removing the logs on top. In a typical term, five companies are used as projects. Each team works on only one company. Two teams compete on each company problem. Examples of these as¬ signed problems are: Burlington Industries, Inc.—“In what ways and to what extent should Burling¬ ton Industries, Inc., be an integrated com¬ pany in the textile field?” Corning Glass Wor\s—“What rate of growth should the management of Corn¬ ing Glass Works set as a target for the next ten years for its consumer products division (primarily Pyrex ware)? How should this rate be obtained?” Hercules Powder Company—“What rate of growth should the management of the Hercules Powder Company set as a target for the next ten years? How should this rate be obtained?” Norfol\ Southern Railway Company As a freight-mover dependent upon the industry of the area it serves, what might the Norfolk Southern do to im¬ prove its prospects and profits?” Westinghouse Electric Corporation— “What strategy should the air-condition¬ ing division of the Westinghouse Electric Corporation follow to insure a position as a dominant seller in the air-conditioning field during the next ten years?”

TEAMS Students are assigned to teams; stu¬ dents do not form their own teams. Some

COURSE

IN

CREATIVE

MARKETING

men have believed this procedure should be reversed so that students could form their own teams. But this difference as to whether the student or the instructors should decide the composition of the teams has involved a question of course objective. The obvious goal of each team is the production of a solution to the assigned problem. The necessity to achieve this solu¬ tion, as a team, requires that the efforts to solve the assigned problem be distributed among the members of the team. This distribution of effort calls for some ra¬ tionale which members of the team will accept. The process of creating this ra¬ tionale, agreeing upon it, and distributing the work-load, creates problems among members of the team. Thus, we can see that the problems of interpersonal relation¬ ships are derived from efforts to solve the assigned problems.

STRATEGY

AT

HARVARD

J29

other men; indeed, the factors which prob¬ ably lay at the root of an individual’s suc¬ cessful performance in a group were un¬ known to us. At this point we obtained the help of Dr. William C. Schutz, a lecturer on social psychology and research associate at the Laboratory of Social Relations at Harvard University. Doctor Schutz, whose book Firo: A Three Dimensional Theory of Interpersonal Behavior was published in August 1958 by Rinehart & Company, Inc., helped us to put the groups together by recognizing personality traits of individ¬ ual students. This was done by giving the men Doctor Schutz’s test Firo. Firo stands for Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation. With Doctor Schutz’s partici¬ pation in the program, it became possible for us to make allowance for personality factors and to predict within limits the out¬ come of the group activities.

SELECTION OF TEAMS LEADERSHIP We know in advance that the success of each team depends upon the sum of the intellectual and emotional powers of the individuals on the team, multiplied by a factor of unknown positive or negative value. But how are we to sum these powers and what is the multiplier? And since we wish to have competing teams approxi¬ mately equal in power, we are faced with a doubly difficult problem. At first we made a practical assump¬ tion that first-year grade performance was the best available sum of each man’s abil¬ ities. As we placed one man on a team, we attempted to place his counterpart on a competing team. Two other factors on which we at¬ tempted to match teams were those of age and undergraduate field of concentration. Then, of course, we attempted to exercise what we thought of as intuitive judgment and look at each man as a whole; but our performance here was probably erratic. Worst of all, there was no basis for pre¬ dicting the ability of men to work with

Another question is whether the in¬ structor should designate a group leader or leave this to the group. We decided upon the latter, and in retrospect, this is the right decision. In the first place, we could not, from the information available to us, choose the proper leader. Second, even if we could choose wisely, we would interfere with what is an important learn¬ ing process for the group in regard to whom to choose and how; whether to keep or replace a chosen leader and how to effect a change; and what to expect from the leader. These are questions which con¬ front all groups and dog most of them. In general, our teams are each com¬ posed of eight men. It appears that when teams are of this size, team members (and their leader) must show a high degree of administration skill in order to operate effectively and efficiently. Indeed, the chal¬ lenge is great because perhaps for the first time in their Business School careers, these men are thrown into a “live” instead of a

JJO

HARRY

L.

HANSEN

“book” administrative problem. Imme¬ diately problems begin to arise within the group involving all the abilities referred to earlier in the catalogue statement, plus others such as: how to plan and conduct meetings; to delegate jobs; to reconcile con¬ flicting views; to communicate with each other; and so on. COMPETITION Our teams compete for “money,” synthetic though it may be. At the end of the course, the teams present their findings to executives of the companies involved and are awarded “prize money.” There is no evidence that the teams do not enjoy the competition; in fact, general reaction is that this competition is fun. One man said: “We don’t need the compensation system to stimulate us. Our desire to beat the other team is strong enough.” Of course, the competition is a major factor influencing workload. At one team meeting, for instance, one man complained about the heavy workload. The instructor said: “Why don’t you work less? We don’t set your workload. You do.” The team member replied: “No, we don’t determine our workload. Our competitors do. If we slacken off, we may lose ground.” One need hardly point to the analogy of com¬ petition among business firms. Team meetings were originally sched¬ uled for one hour once each week, but as the course has grown, two hours appears to be the minimum time necessary. There were many cases in which afternoon meet¬ ings scheduled perhaps from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. have gone on to 6 p.m. and 7 p.m. or well into the evening. These sponta¬ neous extensions often seemed to represent idealized teaching opportunities, situations where instructor and students were so seized by the problem that there was no real alternative but to continue the prob¬ lem attack. There is no doubt that a weekly

meeting with a team consisting of a half dozen or more men offers teaching oppor¬ tunities beyond reach in the class of aver¬ age size. Certainly by the end of the term, we have as close a relationship with our students as any instructor could aspire to. We have found this both exciting and frustrating. It is exciting because we can see the problems of individuals and in a number of cases, perhaps too few, we can help them grow under many conflicting pressures. But the relationship is frustrat¬ ing too. Many times we say, “If we only had more time we could do so much more.” We had become involved with our team members in a way unknown to us before in teaching. Weekly instructor-team meetings are, of course, not the only time at which the teams meet. Usually teams meet at least once each week in addition; and in periods of crisis or frustration, additional meet¬ ings are usually scheduled. PRESENTATIONS We schedule two oral presentations— a first or intermediate one and a final one. The objective of the first presentation is to provide a “check point.” There are special gains: Some men, after arguing their team to take a particular approach on which the team foundered in the presen¬ tation, have found that responsibility rides along with persuasion; other men have seen their team trip up because they had not adequately pressed their own ideas. The experiences of the teams in the first presentation flower when it comes to the final presentation. Presentations are still planned and prepared under crisis con¬ ditions; but they are smoother and greatly improved. So far as the School’s Faculty is con¬ cerned, the panels making the awards have consisted of the two course instructors and one or more other members of the Faculty not concerned with the course. Several

COURSE

IN

CREATIVE

MARKETING

other Faculty members have attended the presentations as auditors. Of most impor¬ tance is the fact that executives of the par¬ ticipating companies are members of the panels. There is no question that the pres¬ ence of businessmen on the panels serves to build up pressure in the teams.

RETROSPECT Both students and instructors perform a prodigious amount of work for a onecourse assignment. To many students, the

STRATEGY

AT

HARVARD

jjl

course is stimulating and to others it is a frustration. To the instructors, it is both an exciting and frustrating experience. We have seen many men grow when they be¬ lieved themselves defeated. We have seen others whom we could not help. The businessmen who have supplied the problems and who have sat on the panels have made no secret of their ad¬ miration for the quality of work done by the teams. Certainly one of the desirable side effects of the course is that we stirred up a great deal of discussion among our students concerning the aims of education.

Selection 29 GEORGE I. SAMSTAD GENERAL ELECTRIC’S CREATIVE COURSES

this selection describes

what is probably the best known teaching pro¬

gram in creativity outside of colleges and universities. The author is Course Development Engineer of General Electric. His paper was adapted from an article, “The Creative Engineering Program,” by C. F. Hix, Jr., Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 45, No. 7, March, 1955. It brings up to date the history, development and structure of the pro¬ gram, as well as its results. For further exposition of specific content taught in the program we recommend Von Fange’s Professional Crea¬ tivity, used as the textbook in the General Electric courses (listed in

Appendix B). The General Electric Company was among the first to demonstrate that the creative productivity of its engineers could be markedly in¬ creased (as evidenced by patents, published papers, etc.) by a com¬ bination of selection and creative training procedures. For example, one survey showed that graduates of the original Creative Engineering Pro¬ gram produced approximately triple the number of patents as did com¬ pany engineers who were not graduates of the Program. Other creative thinking programs are in operation in the various divisions of General Electric; however the one described below is the oldest and most intensive educational program.

333

GEORGE

I.

SAMSTAD

INTRODUCTION The objectives of General Electric’s Creative Courses are to identify young en¬ gineers with potential creative talents and to help them develop these talents. The courses seek to increase the ability of par¬ ticipants to produce ideas, to improve the practicality of their ideas, to utilize their ideas fully, and to gain ultimate accept¬ ance for useful new ideas. The purpose of this article is to de¬ scribe the mechanics of the Creative Courses. Such broad philosophical ques¬ tions as: “What are the processes involved in creative thinking?”, “What factors in¬ fluence creativity?”, etc., which imme¬ diately come to mind in connection with the discussion of any formal course in creativity, are not dealt with here. Many books and articles are published each year on these fascinating and elusive facets of the creative process. With full apprecia¬ tion of the fact that many intangible, undefined but influential forces play a great part in the inexact art of creativity, this article confines itself to a description of the experience-proved methods and techniques now used at General Electric. HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT The first General Electric course in creativity was organized in 1937 under the direction of Dr. A. R. Stevenson, director and co-founder of the Company’s already well-known Advanced Engineering Pro¬ gram. Before this time, industry had rec¬ ognized the need for creative or inventive engineering; in fact, it had accepted the responsibility for the development of young engineers with this talent. The sys¬ tem used from early craft or tradesman days was the time-honored apprenticeship technique. Men who showed signs of crea¬ tive talent were associated with senior en¬ gineers who could in some measure nur¬

ture this undefined talent by providing inspiration and guidance. The discovery of men possessing creative ability for the most part was happenstance. It was usually ne¬ cessary for the creative spark to assert it¬ self under conditions which did not en¬ courage creative work or give opportunity for its practice. It was in the interest of establishing a more purposeful plan for discovering and developing these abilities that the original course was organized. At first, creative capacity was inter¬ preted as a facility in the art of design. A philosophical approach to creativity was yet to emerge, so very little time was de¬ voted to this area. The emphasis was placed on ingenuity in selection of ma¬ terials; in designing and adapting designs to manufacturing. It soon became clear that emphasis on the art of design was valuable for “reduction-to-practice” engi¬ neering but overlooked the imaginative creative engineering that goes into the choice of the fundamental design plan. The guiding objective of the course was, therefore, enlarged to interpret creative engineering in the broader sense of com¬ prising the entire chain of efforts leading from recognition of the need and concep¬ tion of a device to its delivery to the cus¬ tomer. Experience gained from observing the graduates after completion of the course suggested changes in emphasis on various portions of the curriculum. The “reduction to practice ’ phases of design engineering occupied a large portion of the curriculum. Primary topics were Mechanics, Electricity and Magnetism, Materials, and Visual Presentation. In the early years, the course was only one year in length. By 1947, however, the course administrators more clearly recog¬ nized and understood the type of philos¬ ophy which must be imparted in order to enhance and develop the course partici¬ pants’ ability to do creative engineering work. Since the acceptance of a philosophy

GENERAL

ELECTRIC’S

is a function of time and experience, a lengthening of the course was necessary for its full development. As a result, the course was expanded to two years, the first year being devoted to developing an understanding of the philosophy under¬ lying the techniques of idea synthesis. De¬ sign problems and exercises were included to enhance design curiosity and the ability to generalize from past experience.

CREATIVE

COURSES

the job of making sure the classes are run successfully. They are responsible for de¬ termining the curriculum, arranging classes, locating suitable lecturers, finding appropriate problems for the students to work on, and most important, stimulating the class members and making sure that their growth is optimized as much as pos¬ sible on an individual basis. CLASS MEMBERS

PRESENT ORGANIZATION The training in its present form is two years in length. The first year (Creative Course I) is generally devoted to the con¬ ception of ideas and the second year (Crea¬ tive Course II) to the reduction of ideas to practice. Throughout the two years, the members of the course are exposed to an atmosphere in which they must “live by their wits.” Scheduled invention becomes a more or less commonplace occurrence. Radical innovations are encouraged. Men learn to overcome the road blocks to crea¬ tivity built within themselves. Two factors essential in establishing the desired atmos¬ phere are: (i) proper selection of class supervisor and (2) proper selection of class members. CLASS SUPERVISOR The class attitude is strongly influ¬ enced by the example set by the class super¬ visor. His application of a sound creative philosophy during class sessions and in individual discussions with the class mem¬ bers goes a long way toward establishing class acceptance and practice of the crea¬ tive philosophy. Recent course graduates who have demonstrated their ability arc usually chosen to supervise the classes. Choosing men who have just recently graduated also assures a good understand¬ ing of the needs and ambitions of the class members. Class supervisors devote full time to

Class members are generally selected from recent college graduates in the fields of engineering or physics. It is not possible to measure the innate creativity of these individuals by consideration of their aca¬ demic record. Observation of men who have done particularly well in the course has shown several attributes that are im¬ portant. These criteria are used in making the selections of course members: 1. A Constructive Discontent with things as they are. From this comes an inherent desire to improve or develop those things with which he comes in contact. 2. An Ability to Observe and understand the meaning of the observations. 3. An Active Curiosity that keeps the mind delving into the functioning of old and new devices and phenomena. The man is not content just to see some¬ thing work; he must find out why, and reason cause and effect through to a logical conclusion. 4. A Well-Organized Mind that is able to file and catalog observed information for future reference. This is the source from which the individual can recall devices, ideas, etc., from everyday ex¬ periences. This material forms the basis for problem synthesis. 5. Good Reasoning Power based upon firm understanding of engineering funda¬ mentals. This is more than the ability to solve problems by manipulation or formulae; it is the understanding of the physical significance of the basic scien-

_Jj6

GEORGE

I.

SAMSTAD

tific laws. It is also the ability to see through the superfluous clutter found in all engineering problems in order to find the core of the problem. 6. A Practical and Creative Imagination able to call upon past experience and present knowledge to bring about new ideas. 7. A Sense of Proportion in orders of mag¬ nitude involved in any experiment or series of calculations. This might be said to be a natural feel for a particular subject, or common sense when it comes to use of judgment in engineering prob¬ lems. 8. An "I’ll Show You’’ Attitude. This is characterized by a willingness to pitch in and find out what’s wrong, or to make a model to illustrate one’s ideas. 9. Outside Creative Interests and activities usually give some indication of a man’s creative potential in engineering. Often hobbies are good clues. The fact that he has a hobby is not the important item; it is what he has done with it. Has he contributed by original work? Or, is he satisfied with repetition of what others have done? Also, experience has shown that an engineer entering the program must rank high in motivation and initiative, and should be at least average in his ability to get along with people. The actual selection process consists of two parts, an entrance problem and an interview. The entrance problem is made up of one or more actual Company en¬ gineering problems which need a creative solution. The prospective class members spend approximately 20 hours of their own time during one week working on this entrance problem. After all of the solutions have been reviewed, each man is given a personal interview. This allows the man to ex¬ plain the ramifications of his solutions. It also gives the interviewer an opportunity

to compare the man’s aptitudes with the criteria previously cited. PROGRAM STRUCTURE The total training consists of three interrelated phases: class work, homework, and rotating assignments. Class Wor\ Classes are usually held once a week, four hours per class, on Company time. The sessions usually consist of a guest lec¬ turer and student discussions. The class¬ room sessions are the nucleus for technical and creadve growth of the class mem¬ bers. In general, the supervisor is not re¬ quired to adhere to a rigid curriculum. This allows him to adjust the material covered to the needs and desires of the particular class which he is supervising. This also allows him to make use of his own creativity in developing the curricu¬ lum. Even though the curriculum does per¬ mit considerable flexibility, the over-all coverage still maintains the emphasis of idea generation in the first year, and re¬ duction of ideas to practice during the second year. Also, certain broad areas are covered in each class during the two years, even though the extent may vary. These areas are: (1) Philosophy of Creativity; (2) Increased technical knowledge; (3) Creative problem approach; and (4) Re¬ duction of ideas to practice. Creative philosophy is introduced by guest lecturers who are known for their creative ability, by contact with the class supervisor, -and by the use of text material. Since the abilities of the students are de¬ veloped by practice, much class time is devoted to the practice and discussion of the known creative techniques. The main text used is Professional Creativity by E. K. Von Fange (published by PrenticeHall). This book was written as a result of the author’s experience as a member

GENERAL

ELECTRIC’S

and later supervisor of one of the Creative Courses, and his subsequent experience in presenting numerous creative seminars at General Electric. Many methods are used to increase the amount of technical knowledge which the student has available for use in syn¬ thesizing solutions to problems. About 15 class sessions during the second year are devoted to the study of such fields as Dy¬ namics, Electric and Magnetic Fields, Heat Transfer, Fluid Flow and Servomechan¬ isms. The emphasis is placed upon physi¬ cal rather than mathematical understand¬ ing of these areas. During the first year, a study is made of physical laws and effects, some of which are little-known and not widely used. The textbook used in this area is Physical Laws and Effects by course graduates C. F. Hix, Jr. and R. P. Alley (John Wiley and Sons, publisher). To study these effects, one method which has been successful is to divide the students into groups of 3 or 4 men each. Each group then undertakes the job of building a model which will demon¬ strate a particular law or effect. Three weeks are given in which to accomplish this job. At the end of this time, a class session is held in which each group ex¬ plains and demonstrates its particular law or effect for the benefit of the rest of the class. Another method used for increasing the students’ technical knowledge is to re¬ quest them to maintain a notebook of new or unusual devices which they have come across through their work experience or in professional literature. For the first few weeks, the men are also requested to hand in to the class supervisor a description of one of these devices each week. These de¬ scriptions are then duplicated and redis¬ tributed to the rest of the class. In this manner, each member collects a descrip¬ tion of a number of new or unusual de¬ vices in a relatively short time. A similar and also quite effective

CREATIVE

COURSES

method for increasing the men’s fund of knowledge is to request each man to give a 15-minute class presentation on some device or process which may be quite common but which has a principle of operation which is really understood by relatively few persons. The third general area which is cov¬ ered during the two years of class work is that of building a sound creative prob¬ lem approach. Here again Eugene Von Fange’s book, Professional Creativity, is used. Class coverage includes the actual solution of problems in class by careful ex¬ amination and treatment of each of the steps in the problem approach. Class dis¬ cussions also prove to be very valuable here. The final area covered is that of the reduction of ideas to practice. Many things must occur between the time that the feasibility of an idea has been proven and the time that the device or method which used the idea has been put into actual operation. In this area, such subjects as manufacturing, cost analysis, materials procurement, reliability, appearance de¬ sign, patent protection, and marketing are studied. Another subject of great importance is: the effective presentation of ideas. No idea or problem solution, no matter how good, is worth a penny until it is used by someone. Written and oral presentation, including visual representation of one’s thoughts, is taught and emphasized throughout the two years. Home Wor\ The course members spend approxi¬ mately 20 hours per week on homework assignments. Almost all of the problems are design problems of current interest to the Company’s engineering components. These new and live problems stimulate creative thinking and the “non-habitual” approach. Solutions to these problems are often used by the product departments

3]8

GEORGE

I.

SAMSTAD

concerned. For over half of the first year, the men are assigned one of these prob¬ lems each week (which is one scheduled invention per week). Then, for the rest of the first year, each man chooses one problem which he would like to work on in detail. He is then given the opportunity to invent a device or method which will solve this problem. Following this he either builds a working model in a model shop or works with a modelmaker to come up with a device which demon¬ strates the feasibility of his idea. Finally, he must make a formal presentation of his solution to Company Management to convince them of the feasibility of the in¬ vention. For the first part of the second year, the homework problems are such that they require increased amounts of analyti¬ cal ability in the various fields of Dy¬ namics, Heat Transfer, etc., in order to be able to solve the problems satisfactorily or to prove the feasibility of the suggested ideas. For the final portion of the second year, the men divide into groups of three or four. Each group then selects a problem which they will solve. This project is simi¬ lar to the individual project worked on during the last part of the first year, ex¬ cept that since it is a group effort, the solu¬ tion can come much closer to being “re¬ duced” to practice. The men build, or have built, a feasibility model and a final model which has been cost-reduced and designed for production. They also consider such things as manufacturability, appearance, market size, and materials needed. This project again terminates with a formal presentation to appropriate management. Rotating Wor\ Assignments The Creative Courses are an integral part of General Electric’s Engineering and Science Program. Consequently, class members engage in a concurrent series of work experiences within the engineering

function of product departments. The class member works along with other en¬ gineers and scientists, and he is appraised on the same basis as other engineers, i.e., merit. Every effort is made to provide as¬ signments which match the product in¬ terest and technology focus of each indi¬ vidual, and which bring him into close association with senior engineers of proven creative ability. The work supervisors take special care to develop imagination and skills through discussion and personal ex¬ ample. In so far as possible, the young en¬ gineer is given responsibility for the de¬ velopment or design of a device so that he may gain early the confidence essential to a productive career. The assignment ex¬ periences afford him an excellent oppor¬ tunity to apply the skills he is acquiring in his class work. In the course of the two years, each young engineer will have had approximately six different work assign¬ ments.

OPPORTUNITIES FOR GRADUATES Upon completion of the courses, op¬ portunities in over ioo product depart¬ ments are open to the graduates in the three major functional areas of product engineering: Advance or Development En¬ gineering; Design Engineering; and Pro¬ duction Engineering. Again in the transfer to a product department, as in selection for the courses, each man is considered in the light of his interests and abilities for each opening in the Company that exists at the time of graduation. The courses, while still young, have seen many graduates advance into responsible positions and contribute to many of General Electric’s most significant technical achievements.

RESULTS ACHIEVED During the time that the courses have been operated, more than 350 men have

GENERAL

ELECTRIC’S

been graduated. Most of these men have opened several patent dockets while still in the courses, and have continued their creative output in their permanent posi¬ tions after graduation. The value of the courses to the General Electric Company is indicated by the demand for graduates. Each year the number of requests from the product departments for course graduates has far exceeded the number of men avail¬ able. Naturally like most educational pro¬ grams, the Creative Courses provide only an introduction to the subject. Each gradu¬ ate receives encouragement to do this type

CREATIVE

COURSES

339

of work and gains some practice in it. After graduation, with the stimulation and challenge of the technical problems of his product department, he will gain in pro¬ fessional stature as his experience broadens and his study continues. His full po¬ tentialities may not be realized for some years because of the time required for full expression of creative talent. The extent of his ultimate contribution depends upon the progress he makes toward improving his own abilities and upon the encourage¬ ment and opportunity he receives to apply his abilities to the full throughout his pro¬ fessional career.

Appendices

Appendix A

COMPENDIUM OF RESEARCH ON CREATIVE IMAGINATION

INTRODUCTION research in the area of

creative imagination has been increasing markedly

in the last decade. In 1955, Richard P. Youtz, head of the Department of Psychology, Barnard College, Columbia University, prepared a report of the Psychological Foundations of Principles and Procedures in Alex F. Osborn’s textbook entitled Applied Imagination (see Selection 17). In the summer of 1958, the Creative Education Foundation published the first Compendium of Research on Creative Imagination, covering thirty research studies con¬ cerned with the identification and development of creative ability. This comprised all such studies discovered by a search of the literature at that time. Within approximately eighteen months, however, another thirty research studies were reported. These were summarized in a second Compendium issued by the Creative Education Foundation. In addition, twenty-eight further research projects currently under way were listed briefly. (This is al¬ most double the number of projects discovered to be under way when the first Compendium was compiled.) Deliberate Development of Creative Talent It is quite interesting to note that approximately half of the studies dis¬ covered for the second Compendium concern research into the deliberate development of creative talent. In the search of the literature for the first Compendium only two such investigations were uncovered. At the 1959 University of Utah Research Conference on the Identifica¬ tion of Creative Scientific Talent, a committee was appointed for the first time to report on “The Role of Educational Experience in the Development of Creative Scientific Talent.” The committee reported that at least six re¬ search projects have indicated that creative productivity can be developed by deliberate procedures. This same conclusion is supported by all pertinent research reported in the two Compendiums. Other Sources for Serious Students A valuable collection of detailed research reports is available in the Reports of the University of Utah Research Conferences on the Identification of Creative Scientific Talent, 1955, 1957, and 1959, edited by Calvin W. Taylor. Some of the reports for 1955 and 1957 are reviewed briefly in this Compendium.

343

344

APPENDIX

A

Two of E. Paul Torrance’s contributions to the literature also provide further information regarding current research on creative thinking. These are “Current Research on the Nature of Creative Talent” in Journal of Counseling Psychology, Vol. 6, 1959, pp. 309-316; and Status of Knowledge Concerning Education and Creative Scientific Talent, prepared in 1961 for a project on the Status of Knowledge about Creative Scientific Talent, directed by Dr. Calvin W. Taylor, University of Utah, and supported by the National Science Foundation. The new book, Creativity and Intelligence, by J. W. Getzels and P. W. Jackson, New York, John Wiley and Sons, 1962, should be studied by those interested in the Getzels-Jackson research covered on page 349. Regarding the studies of Frank Barron (page 345) and others at the Insti¬ tute of Personality Assessment and Research, students are referred to a 1961 Report of Proceedings of a University of California conference on “The Crea¬ tive Person.” This conference was devoted to a presentation and discussion of the research findings at the Institute of Personality Assessment and Re¬ search and elsewhere. The Proceedings are available from the Liberal Arts Department, University Extension, University of California. Bibliographies In addition to research reports, comprehensive bibliographies are available to the serious student of creative thinking. Examples are those of J. P. Guil¬ ford of the University of Southern California and Morris Stein of New York University. Selected and annotated bibliographies also are produced at the University of Buffalo; a 195°— 1960 compilation follows this Compendium in Appendix B. In addition to several extensive bibliographies cited in the 1950— 60 list, another comprehensive, annotated bibliography became available in 1961. It is entitled, “Creativity in Research and Invention in the Physical Sciences,” compiled by Mildred Benton, Library Branch, Technical Informa¬ tion Division, U.S. Naval Research Laboratory, Washington 25, D.C. In Europe, Roger J. Bedard is conducting research into all literature on creativity in France, Italy, and Germany. He has already completed extensive bibliographies of the literature of the first two countries. The research involved in compiling the Compendiums at the University of Buffalo was supported by grants from the Creative Education Foundation. Research assistance in the search of the literature was provided by Angelo M. Biondi. Continuing research into studies regarding the development of creativity is being financed at the University of Buffalo. Additional Compendi¬ ums will be issued as compilations are completed. The sixty studies summarized in the two Compendiums are combined alphabetically by author below, followed by the list of further research projects under way in i960.

COMPENDIUM

OF

RESEARCH

ON

CREATIVE

IMAGINATION

^45

Barron, Frank, “Some Relationships be¬ tween Originality and Style of Person¬ ality,” American Psychologist, Vol. IX,

response in the sample under study, and (2) its adequacy to the realistic demands of the problem situations.

r954> P- 326.

The subjects were then divided into two groups defined as regularly original or regu¬ larly unoriginal, and administered a new series of tests (Barron-Welsh Art Scale, CPIImpulsivity Scale, CPI-Social Dominance Scale, and others). The five hypotheses con¬ cerning originality were thus tested.

This study was designed to compare the style of personality of individuals consistendy performing in an original way with that of less original individuals. Three hundred and forty-three military officers were used as subjects during the threeday testing period. Subjects were given a series of tests from Guilford’s originality as¬ sessment battery, in addition to a group of perceptual-cognitive tasks. One hundred officers were then chosen to undergo further testing in a three-day living-in assessment. They were administered personality tests, situational tests, etc. Each officer was also interviewed and rated by the use of such procedures as “Q-sorts and trait ratings.” An analysis of results showed that the more original subjects could be readily sepa¬ rated from the less original ones by the originality measures. A positive relationship was found to exist between originality and scope-and-complexity as a person. Similar re¬ lationships of a low order of magnitude also existed between originality and (1) impulsivity, (2) skepticism, (3) daring, and (4) ex¬ pressive as opposed to suppressive dispositions in the personality. Barron, Frank, “The Disposition towards Originality,” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. LI, 1955, pp. 478— 485. This study was designed to investigate differences in the personality organization

The findings show originality to be re¬ lated to: (1) independence of judgment, (2) personal complexity, (3) preference for com¬ plexity in phenomena, (4) self-assertion and dominance, and (5) rejection of suppression as a mechanism for the control of impulse. Bloom, S. S., “Report on Creativity Re¬ search at the University of Chicago,” Re¬ port of Research Conference on the Iden¬ tification of Creative Scientific Talent, University of Utah, August 27-30, 1955, pp. 182-194. Comparison studies were made on the problem-solving processes of students as they actually engaged in attacking problems. A group of individuals judged as outstanding in problem-solving was contrasted with a group of very poor problem-solvers. The two groups showed considerable dif¬ ference in methods of attack, in confidence in themselves and their problem-solving, and in motivation—in desire to attack problems. It was concluded that interests, motiva¬ tion, and personality characteristics, as well as cognitive skills and aptitudes, account for a portion of the variance in measures in problem-solving achievement.

of individuals who were identified as per¬ forming consistently in a “relatively more or

Bloom, S. S., “Studies of Creative versus Non-Creative Individuals: University of

relatively less original way.” A group of 100 captains in the United States Air Force were used as subjects. They were provided with living quarters for three

Chicago,” Report of Research Conference on the Identification of Creative Scientific Talent, University of Utah, August 27-30,

days during which time a staff of observers rated them on originality on the basis of their

Several panels of chemists and mathe¬ maticians selected a group of people whom they believed to be outstandingly creative individuals in their respective fields. A second group, equated for experience and education,

social interaction within the group. The group was administered a battery of eight tests designed to measure originality. Test responses were scored for originality on the basis of: (1) the uncommonness of the

i955» PP- 183-184-

but not noted for creativity, was also selected. Twenty-seven tests designed to measure

_^6

APPENDIX

A

various hypothesized characteristics of crea¬ tive workers (such as fluency, originality and

greater opportunity to exercise his creative ability.

perseverance) groups.

Creative individuals were found to differ significantly from the non-creative in motiva¬ tion and freedom of expression.

were

administered

to

both

Comparison studies of test results re¬ vealed very little in the way of significant dif¬ ferences between the two groups in aptitudes, problem-solving habits, or perceptual-cogni¬ tive habits. Through the use of projective tests, several personality and temperamental characteristics were frequently found in the more creative subjects: (a) A high degree of energy which was channeled into productive research efforts; (b) Some difficulty in estab¬ lishing warm and friendly relations with other people; (c) A sense of need for retreat from the social world to a world of ideas and objects.

Buhl, Harold R., “Engineering Crea¬ tivity; Qualities of the Creative Engineer¬ ing Student,” Department of Mechanical

Chorness, M. H., and Nottelmann, D. A., “The Predictability of Creative Expres¬ sion in Teaching,” Air Force Personnel and Training Research Center, Lackland Air Force Base, December, 1956. This study was designed to relate Guil¬ ford creativity measures to aspects of creative behavior manifested in teaching. The study was also concerned with determining the rela¬ tive effectiveness of the intelligence test as compared with creativity tests, in predicting creative aspects of teaching performance. Fifty-two students at the General In¬ structor School, Lackland Air Force Base,

Sep¬

were used as subjects. The subjects had pre¬ viously taken an intelligence test and a battery of Guilford creativity tests. Subjects were ob¬

This project attempts to identify and un¬

served and rated individually on creativity criteria in teaching. This was done as the

Engineering, Iowa tember, 1958.

State College,

derstand the creative engineer, differentiate the highly creative individuals from the less creative ones, and determine the attributes which appear pertinent to creativity. A group of 167 first-term freshman en¬ gineers were used as subjects. They were ad¬ ministered the A. C. Test of Creative Ability. Subjects receiving the upper 25% of the raw quantitative scores were classified as highly creative; those receiving the scores in the lower 25% were classified as the low group. The subjects were also administered a onehundred item biographical inventory. Com¬ parisons between the two groups were made in: discipline, freedom of expression, stand¬ ards, sociological grouping, scholastic achieve¬ ment, activities, personality, health and hab¬ its. The results show a close correlation be¬ tween creativity and scholastic achievement at the end of the college freshman year. Some correlation was found between creativity and mental ability as measured in the ACE test. It was pointed out, however, that a high mental potential does not necessarily insure a high creative ability, even though an indi¬ vidual with a high mental potential has a

subjects conducted lecture-discussion sessions at the G. I. School. An attempt was made to predict each subject’s rating on the basis of the intelligence test and the Guilford tests. The results were inconclusive. However, both the creative aspects of teaching as well as the students’ grades in their instructor¬ training course were about as well predicted by the creativity tests as by the intelligence test. In fact, the course grade tended to be better predicted by creativity test scores than by intelligence test scores, although the dif¬ ferences were not significant. Chorness, M. H., and Nottelmann, D. A., “The Prediction of Creativity Among Air Force Civilian Employees,” Air Force Personnel'and Training Research Center, Lackland Air Force Base, March, 1957. This study was designed to determine whether current tests of creativity were valid determinants of creative talent manifested in conjunction with the Awards Program.

Air Force

Incentive

Sixty-five civilian employees who had re¬ ceived monetary awards for ideas were ad-

COMPENDIUM

OF

RESEARCH

ministered a battery of Guilford tests and the Personnel Data Questionnaire. An equal num¬ ber of employees who had no record of ever having submitted ideas were also given the same tests. The two groups were matched for intelligence, education and performance rat¬ ing. An analysis of the results revealed a non¬ significant difference between the test scores of the two civilian groups. It was recommended that future studies be conducted to investigate (i) personality variables found to correlate with creativity and (2) cognitive measures such as those pre¬ sented in the Guilford creativity battery. Christensen, Paul R.; Guilford, J. P.; and Wilson, R. C., “Relations of Creative Re¬ sponses to Working Time and Instruc¬ tions,” Journal of Experimental Psy¬ chology, Vol. LIII, 1957, pp. 82-89. Relationships were studied between the number of responses produced and the suc¬ cessive increments of time in which the re¬ sponses were produced, in several creativethinking tests. The relationship between cleverness, uncommonness, and remoteness of response to time was also investigated The subjects consisted of Air Force avia¬ tion cadets, student officers and college stu¬ dents. An analysis of the data revealed that the answers to the simple recall tasks were rapid at first, but progressively decreased; whereas the answers for the creative tests were rela¬ tively constant. Uncommonness and remote¬ ness increased with time, but cleverness was found to be independent of time. Although it appeared that individuals were disposed to¬ ward making clever responses, instructions to be clever increased the total number of clever responses and the average degree of cleverness. Dougan, Catherine P.; Schiff, Ethel; and Welch, Livingston, “Originality Ratings of Department Store Display Department Personnel,” Journal of Applied Psychol¬ ogy, Vol. XXXIII, 1949, pp. 31-35. This study was designed to measure orig¬ inality or creative thinking of 33 employees in the display department of R. H. Macy Company.

ON

CREATIVE

IMAGINATION

The subjects were administered the Welch Reorganization Test which forced them to recombine familiar ideas accord¬ ing to four different patterns. This test is based on Welch’s belief that “the ability to recombine easily and reorganize ideas accord¬ ing to a specific plan is essential to all types of creative thinking.” The subjects also received creativity rat¬ ings from their superiors, based on a fivepoint rating scale. An analysis of the results showed a con¬ tingency coefficient of .60 between test results and the creativity ratings by supervisors. As a further analysis, the mean test score (43-0 was compared with mean scores ob¬ tained by professional artists (60.5), college art majors (56.4), and unselected students (37.6) (from a previous study). Although the difference between the professional artists and the display personnel was found to be statis¬ tically significant, the difference between the unselected students and display personnel was not.

Drevdahl, John E., “Factors of Impor¬ tance for Creativity,” Journal of Clinical Psychology, Vol. XII, 1956, pp. 21-26. This study was designed to explore re¬ lationships between ratings of creativity and certain objectively measured personality and intellectual factors in a high level popula¬ tion. The subjects used in this study were a group of university advanced undergraduate and graduate students. Subjects were administered a series of tests: (1) Cattell’s sixteen personality factor questionnaire, (2) Thurstone’s primary men¬ tal abilities test, and (3) nine of Guilford’s tests designed to measure factors possibly in¬ volved in creative thinking. All subjects were independently rated for creativity on the basis of a seven-point scale. The subjects were then divided into creative and non-creative groups, as well as into arts and science groups. Analysis of the data revealed the tests which significantly differentiated the creative from the non-creative students included: Guil¬ ford’s Originality, Thurstone’s Verbal Mean¬ ing, and Cattell’s Radicalism vs. Conservativism, Self-Sufficiency vs. Lack of Resolution,

348

APPENDIX

A

Cyclothymia vs. Schizothymia, Surgency vs. Desurgency. The creative individuals were found to be superior in their verbal facility, fluency, flexibility, and originality. They were also found to be more withdrawn and quiescent. Both individuality and non-conformity ap¬ peared to be characteristics for creativity. Fisichelli, V. R., and Welch, Livingston,

tivity battery predict creative ability as meas¬ ured by a creative activities score of a bio¬ graphical inventory. The subjects consisted of 170 aviation cadets at the Pre-Flight Training School, Lackland Air Force Base. They were ad¬ ministered a battery of Guilford creativity tests (yielding 15 scores) designed to measure sensitivity to problems, ideational fluency, spontaneous flexibility, originality, redefini¬

“The Ability of College Art Majors to Re¬ combine Ideas in Creative Thinking,” Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.

tion, word fluency, verbal comprehension, associational fluency, and adaptive flexibility.

XXXI, 1947, p. 278.

items was used to provide a creative activities score.

This study was designed to determine tire ability of a group of college art majors to recombine ideas in creative thinking. Twenty-five female art majors in their junior and senior years at Hunter College were used as subjects in this investigation. A test was used which had previously been given to a group of unselected college juniors and seniors as well as to a group of success¬ ful professional artists. The test consisted of four separately given parts: (1) Constructing meaningful sentences, (2) Constructing letters of the alphabet, (3) Constructing a short story, and (4) Constructing pieces of furni¬

A biographical inventory containing 24

Eleven of the 15 scores obtained by the Guilford tests were found to correlate with the creative activities scores obtained from the biographical inventory. These correlations were significant beyond the .05 level of con¬ fidence, with 10 of them significant beyond the .01 level. The three factors found to correlate most highly with the creative activities score were: sensitivity to problems, ideational fluency, and originality. Gerry,

ture from wooden blocks. Mean scores for the art majors, profes¬ sional artists, and the unselected college stu¬ dents were then compared. An analysis showed that the difference between the un¬ selected students and the art majors was sta¬ tistically significant. However, the difference between the art majors and the professional artists was not significant. The test scores of the art majors were then correlated with the general scholastic index of the subjects with a resulting productmoment coefficient of .45, significant at the .05 level of confidence. Gerry,

Robert;

DeVeau,

Larry;

Robert;

DeVeau,

Larry;

and

Chorness, Maury, “A Review of Some Recent Research in the Field of Crea¬ tivity and the Examination of an Experi¬ mental Creativity Workshop,” Training Analysis and Development Division, Lackland Air Force Base, September, 1957, (Study II). This study was designed to determine whether increments in creative thinking actu¬ ally occurred during an experimental work¬ shop designed to improve creative expression. ten

The subjects used were two groups of civilian employees, each meeting bi¬

weekly for one-and-a-half hour sessions. Workshop members were given an opportu¬

and

nity to apply themselves creatively to a variety

Chorness, Maury, “A Review of Some Recent Research in the Field of Creativity

of tasks. The brainstorming technique was used throughout the workshop sessions both

and the Examination of an Experimental Creativity Workshop,” Training Analysis

as a warm-up procedure and as a method to produce a “psychologically safe atmosphere.”

and Development Division, Lackland Air Force Base, Texas, September, 1957, (Study I).

The test design included a pre- and post¬ administration of a battery of tests including Plot Titles, Consequences Test, Unusual Uses,

This study was designed to determine

and

whether selected tests from Guilford’s crea¬

the Gestalt Transformation

Test.

An

attitude questionnaire was also administered

COMPENDIUM

OF

RESEARCH

in an attempt to record any supplementary effects on the participants during the work¬ shop. An analysis of the results showed the experimental group to increase significantly in the number of original responses on the Plot Titles and Consequences tests. Personal gains were also experienced by the experi¬ mental subjects as noted in a review of the attitude survey.

Getzels, J. W., and Jackson, P. W., ‘The Meaning of ‘Giftedness’—an Examination of an Expanding Concept,” Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. XL, 1958, pp. 75-77. This study was designed to compare highly intelligent and highly creative high school students on the following factors: (1) School achievement (2) Preference by teachers. (3; Personal quality preferences of the subjects. (4; Their own perception of per¬ sonal qualities important for adult success and for pleasing teachers. (5) Writing “style.” From a school population whose average IQ was 132 (approximately 500 students in a Midwestern private secondary school; two experimental groups were formed: one, a high creativity group (24 subjects in the top 20% on creativity measures but below the top 20% in IQ;; the second, a high intelligence group (28 subjects in the top 20% in IQ, but below the top 20% on the creativity measures;. Students in the top 20% on both creativity and IQ were excluded from the experiment, but are the subjects of further investigation. The results showed that the highly crea¬ tive students were just as superior to the total school population on achievement scores as were the high IQ students, even though there was a 23 point difference between aver¬

ON

CREATIVE

IMAGINATION

^()

were as follows: In the high IQ group there v/as considerable agreement between the qualities they would like to have themselves and the qualities they felt made for adult success. But, for the high creativity group this was not so. Likev/ise, the high IQ stu¬ dents indicated considerable agreement be¬ tween die qualities they would like to have and the qualifies they believed their teachers favored, while for the highly creative students this again was not so. The highly creative group ranked “sense of humor” second among the qualities in which they would like to be outstanding, while the high IQs ranked this trait last. Findings regarding writing “style” showed that the highly creative students ex¬ hibited greater imagination and originality dian did die high IQs (in response to stim¬ ulus pictures).

Green, Leah Ann, “A Study of Crea¬ tivity and the Self-Attitudes and Sociabil¬ ity of High School Students,” Disserta¬ tion Abstracts, Vol. XVII, 1957, pp. 18071808. This study was designed to investigate any group differences in self-attitudes and sociability of high school students nominated by their teachers as creative and non-creafive. A group of 126 students who were nom¬ inated as creative or non-creafive by their teachers was administered the “Attitude In¬ ventory” test battery. Additional data (IQ and educational achievement) was collected from school records. No significant difference was found be¬ tween the self-attitude evaluations of the creative and non-creafive students. However,

achievement tests, was equal. Findings regarding personal quality pref¬

on sociability measures, the creative students tended to score higher. The creative boys were significantly superior to the non-creative boys on intellectual measures. It v/as also found that the parental education level of the crea¬ tive group was significantly higher than that of the non-creative group. Several sex differ¬ ences were also discovered. The author did not feel that the stereo¬ type of the withdrawn, self-rejecting, creative student v/as justified by the findings of this

erences and perceptions of the two groups

study.

age IQs of the high IQ students and the highly creative students. A second result showed that the high IQ students were rated by the teachers as preferable to the highly creative students (on the degree to which the teachers v/ould enjoy having them in class;, even though their academic performance, as measured by

3$0

APPENDIX

A

Engineering,” Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. Harms, Ernst, “The Psychology of For¬ mal Creativeness: I. Six Fundamental Types of Formal Expression,” Journal of Genetic Psychology (Pedagogical Semi¬ nary), Vol. LXIX, 1946, pp. 97-120. In this study a line-analysis test was de¬ veloped which allows the subject to express by a simple line the meaning of a word describing some everyday activity. The test, composed of two series of 12 words each, was administered to 10,000 sub¬ jects ranging from kindergarten children to adults in various fields (professional, non¬ professional, inmates of mental institutions, etc.) A time lapse of two or three weeks was allowed between the administration of series I and II. (The words in series II differed fundamentally from those in series I.) Series I was usually readministered three or four weeks following series II. The test responses were analyzed, grouped, and classified as six fundamental types of formal expression: (1) monographical type—Single small sign resembling a letter of the alphabet. (2) cursive type—Small sign, repeated in a formal way. (3) pictographical type—Symbolic or pictorial sign. (4) script type—Rhythmic repetition of one, two or possibly three form motives in one line. (5) spatial type—Line expresses emo¬ tional trend, ascending or descending char¬ acter. (6) final type—No formal expression; response is without any pattern. An analysis of the results shows that less than 10 per cent of the responses appear in pure form, the rest appearing in mixed form. It was also found that definite artistic abilities do not coincide with representation accord¬ ing to a pure type form. No definite correla¬ tion was found between a type of response and an aptitude for a specific expression of art. However, the general richness or poverty of formal expression was readily observable in any test.

XX, 1959, p. 2374. This research was designed to develop a test of creativity to be used in the selection and placement of engineering personnel in industrial organizations. The item response data collected from 345 engineering students were used to de¬ velop two forms of a 20-item test containing three scores: Fluency Score, Flexibility Score, Originality Score. Groups of senior mechanical engineering students, product engineers, and manufactur¬ ing development engineers were used in test¬ ing for validity and reliability. The test was found to be both reliable and valid. It was concluded that the test should be useful in selecting and placing engineering personnel in positions requiring the produc¬ tion of new and original ideas for the solution of problems. Harris, Richard H., ‘The Development and Validation of a Test of Creative Ability,” Doctoral Dissertation Series, Publication No. 13,927, University Micro¬ films, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1955. This study was designed to develop and validate a creative ability test which could be used in surveying the technical and super¬ visory personnel of an industrial concern. In this study a creative individual was defined as one who can produce a quantity of unique and workable ideas when presented with new or routine problems. Seven of the ten tests used were specif¬ ically designed to measure factors implied in the definition. These seven were: (1) Sen¬ tence Synthesis; (2) Mathematical Reasoning; (3) Problem Sensitivity; (4) Common Situa¬ tions; (5) General Reasoning; (6) Practical Judgment; (7) Originality. The remaining three tests, used were already in existence: (8) Gestalt Completion Test, Form A; (9) Gestalt Completion Test, Form B; and (10) Strong Vocational Interest Blank. A group of 32 supervisory and engineer¬ ing personnel were selected for preliminary testing. As a result, tests 1, 2, 8, 9 and 10 were eliminated because of the lack of vari¬

Harris, Douglas Hershel, Jr., “The De¬ velopment of a Test of Creativity

in

ability in scores. The remaining tests were then grouped to form a combined test.

COMPENDIUM

OF

RESEARCH

ON

CREATIVE

IMAGINATION

The combined test correlated highly with supervisory judgments of performance of the seven independent samples of individuals used. These included engineers, engineering students, technical personnel, and hourly em¬ ployees.

mental or personality traits that might affect creativity were administered to a group of students. The subjects had been rated pre¬ viously as highly creative or non-creative on the basis of their performances in the arts.

Hersch, Charles, “The Cognitive Func¬ tioning of the Creative Person: A De¬

tiated the creative individuals from those who were less creative. The more creative individ¬ uals were found to excel in: (1) Sensitivity to problems. (2) Fluency. (3) Flexibility. (4) Skill at redefinition. (5) Ability to abstract. (6) Ability to synthesize. (7) Consistency of organization. (8) Originality. Further examination showed that six of these attributes were identical, and one sim¬ ilar, to those found by Dr. J. P. Guilford in his studies on creativity in the sciences. It was concluded that conscious cultiva¬ tion of creativity in the arts may increase creativeness in general.

velopmental Analysis by Means of the Rorschach Test,” Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. XVIII, 1958, pp. 296-297. This study was designed to investigate the pattern of cognitive functioning which characterizes the creative individual. The subjects included 20 eminent artists (creative individuals), 20 non-creative nor¬ mals, and 20 schizophrenics. All were ad¬ ministered the Rorschach test. Response cate¬ gories of the test were considered as “mature” (Movement, Integrative, and Form Domi¬ nant) or “primitive” (Form Subordinate, Physiognomic, and Primidve Thought Re¬ sponses) .

An analysis of the results revealed eight distinct attributes that significantly differen¬

Maizell, Robert E., “Information-Gather¬ ing Patterns and Creativity: A Study of

The results showed that the artists gave more Movement and Form Dominant re¬ sponses than either the normals or the schizo¬ phrenics. They also exceeded both the nor¬

Research Chemists in an Industrial Re¬ search Laboratory,” (prepared in connec¬ tion with requirements for the doctorate at the Columbia University School of Li¬

mals and the schizophrenics in the number of Physiognomic responses given. This primitive category best distinguished between the crea¬

brary Science, October, publication).

tive individuals and the normals. However, it was concluded that the primitive func¬ tioning of the creative person is manifested differently than that of the schizophrenic. These findings supported the hypothesis that the creative individuals would manifest a greater availability of both mature and primi¬ tive cognitive operations than the normals. It was also concluded that creative in¬ dividuals have control functions (as reflected by the Movement and Form Dominant Re¬ sponses) more readily available than either non-creative normals or schizophrenics. Lowenfeld, Viktor, and Beittel, Kenneth, “Interdisciplinary Criteria of Creativity in the Arts and Sciences: A Progress Re¬ port,” Research Yearbook^ of the National Art Education Association, 1959, pp. 3544. A battery of 36 tests designed to explore

1957. Not for

This study was designed to investigate the relationship of differences in information¬ gathering patterns and literature-use to differ¬ ences in creativity. Subjects were 94 chemists from a single industrial research laboratory who had been rated by their superiors on creative ability. The chemists also received ratings on the Differential Reaction Schedule Test (by Har¬ rison Gough of the University of California) and the AC Test of Creative Ability (de¬ veloped by Richard Harris). Comparison studies of the mean scores on both these tests showed differences between the most creative and least creative chemists to be statistically significant at the .01 level. A 70-item questionnaire furnished data on the information-gathering patterns of each chemist. Additional data were also obtained from an individually kept “Daily InformationGathering Record.” Analysis of the questionnaires revealed

J52

APPENDIX

A

many differences between the two types of chemists to be statistically significant from the .01 to .05 levels. As compared to the least creative chemists, the most creative chemists were found to: (a) show diversity, depth and

Two experimental groups and one con¬ trol group were formed from 120 students in introductory psychology classes. These sub¬ jects were presented with a word list, from which free associations were evoked. The ex¬

breadth in their reading; (b) possess reading habits daat suggested an element of indus¬

perimental groups were then given further practice in producing different responses to

triousness; (c) make more extensive use of literature; and (d) show signs of being inde¬ pendent thinkers.

the words on the original word lists. (One of the experimental groups was given praise periodically for original responses.) All three

Maltzman, Irving; Brooks, Lloyd O.; Bogartz, William; and Summers, Stanley

groups were finally given a new test list of words for free association. Half of the sub¬ jects in all three groups were asked to be as

S., “The Facilitation of Problem-Solving by Prior Exposure to Uncommon Re¬ sponses,” journal of Experimental Psy¬ chology, Vol. LVI, 1958, pp. 399-406. A series of four experiments were con¬ ducted to investigate whether prior exposure to uncommon responses would facilitate prob¬ lem-solving. Maier’s two-string problem was used in all the experiments. The first experiment was designed to determine whether originality, as measured in terms of uncommonness of response, is re¬ lated to the speed of solution on the twostring problem. Significant but low correladons between these measures were obtained for the male subjects only. The remaining three experiments were designed to determine whether presenting the subjects with lists of uncommon uses for ob¬ jects would facilitate their subsequent soludon of the two-string problem in which these objects may be used. The results showed that training of the above sort “tended to facilitate the problem¬ solving performance of women in the absence of any obvious specific transfer-effects. The direction of the effect was the same among the men, but was not statistically significant in the majority of the conditions.”

original as possible in their associations on this list. All three groups were next given Guilford’s Unusual Uses test. Again half of the subjects were asked to be as original as possible. Results demonstrated both experimental (trained) groups to be significantly more original than the control group on the free association

test

list,

under

the

conditions

where subjects were instructed to be original. Under the conditions of no special instruc¬ tions, the experimental group which was praised periodically for originality produced significantly more original responses than the control group. The “unpraised” experimental group’s increase approached, but did not reach, significance under the condition of no special instructions. Other analyses demonstrated: (1) the two experimental groups did not differ signif¬ icantly from one another. (2) Instructions to be original resulted in significant increases in originality in all three groups. Results with the Unusual Uses test were ambiguous.

Maltzman, Irving; Bogartz, William; and Simon, Seymore, “Effects of Different Training Methods on Free Association, Originality and Unusual Uses,” Univer¬

Maltzman, Irving; Bogartz, William; and Breger, Louis, “A Procedure for Increas¬

sity of California, Department of Psychol¬ ogy, August, 1958, Technical Report 1,

ing Word Association Originality and Its Transfer-Effects,” journal of Experi¬ mental Psychology, Vol. LVI, 1958, pp. 392-398.

Prepared under contract Nonr 233(50) for the Office of Naval Research.

This study attempted to ascertain whether the production of original verbal responses could be increased by training.

The purpose of this experiment was to determine whether more original free associa¬ tion responses to stimulus words would occur after training as a result of: (1) providing subjects with new words each time or (2)

COMPENDIUM

OF

RESEARCH

ON

CREATIVE

IMAGINATION

asking for different responses to the same word. The subjects, 292 students enrolled in in¬ troductory psychology classes, were divided into three experimental and two control groups. They were administered the same initial and a different final test-list of stimulus words. The first experimental group received repeated presentations of the initial list of words, to which they gave different responses each time. The second and third experimental groups received a comparable number of different stimulus words prior to the final testlist. The first control group received only a single presentation of the initial list followed by the test-list. The second control group re¬ ceived the same number of presentations of the initial list as did the first experimental group, but gave the same response to a given stimulus word on each successive presenta¬ tion. All groups were administered Guilford’s Unusual Uses test immediately after the com¬ pletion of the final free association test-list. An analysis of the results of the free asso¬ ciation test showed that the originality of the responses obtained from the three experimen¬ tal groups did not differ significantly from one another; nor did the two control groups differ significantly. However, each of the experimental groups was significantly more original than the control groups. The results of the Unusual Uses test showed that the first experimental group was significantly more original than the other groups. The first control group showed sig¬ nificantly less originality than the other groups. The authors conclude that the procedure of repeatedly evoking different responses to the same stimulus words seems to increase the occurrence of more original responses to other stimulus words. Greater facilitation of orig¬ inality appears to be produced in this manner than by presenting different stimulus words in order to evoke different responses.

This study involved two experiments de¬ signed to investigate the effects of training conditions upon facilitation of originality. In one experiment, five different groups of subjects were compared. All groups were given two different lists of free association stimulus words, before and after additional and varied training conditions. As training, one of the five groups was required to produce different responses, on each of five occasions, to a list of stimulus words. Two groups were given lists of pairs of uncommon responses. The latter two groups’ tasks in each case in¬ volved making a choice between each pair of words. The fourth group was given items from the Unusual Uses test, and was asked for different responses to each item, on each of re¬ peated presentations of the item. The fifth group received no additional training of any kind. The group of subjects whose training conditions involved producing different re¬ sponses to the free association words was superior to any other group on the number of original responses on the final free associa¬ tion test, and in number of unique responses to the Unusual Uses test administered at the conclusion of the experiment. (The latter test was given to all but the group that had used the Unusual Uses items in their training con¬ ditions.) Differences among the groups in the pro¬ duction of unoriginal responses are also dis¬ cussed. The group which received no addi¬ tional training beyond the first free associa¬ tion list was significantly less productive than the others. The second experiment studied the effects on originality (in free association tests) of increased amounts of practice in responding to Unusual Uses test items. No significant increases in originality in subsequent free association lists were discovered.

Maltzman, Irving; Raskin, David; and Simon, Seymore, “A Further Study of Methods of Training Free Association, Originality and Unusual Uses,” Univer¬ sity of California, Department of Psy¬

Maltzman, Irving; Simon, Seymore; Raskin, David; and Licht, Leonard, “Effects of Different Amounts of Train¬ ing on Originality,” University of Cali¬ fornia, Department of Psychology, Au-

chology, April, 1959, Technical Report 2, Prepared under contract Nonr 233(50) for the Office of Naval Research.

J54

appendix

a

gust, 1959, Technical Report 3, Prepared under contract Nonr 233(50) for the Office of Naval Research. This experiment was designed to deter¬ mine whether originality test performance would vary according to amount of training with free association materials. Subjects were 201 students from intro¬ ductory psychology classes. Four principal groups were formed and were presented an initial free association list of words. Experi¬ mental groups X1} X5, and X10 received one, five and ten repetitions respectively of the free association list, with instructions to give a different response each time. The control group received no training. All four groups were then given a final free association testlist, followed by Guilford’s Unusual Uses test.

training, as evidenced by the retention of a disposition to emit original responses. Subjects were 177 students from intro¬ ductory psychology classes. Two experimental and two control groups were formed. All four groups were presented an initial free association word list. The two experimental groups subsequently received five repetitions of this list, with instructions to respond with different words each time. The control groups received no such practice. One hour later one experimental and one control group were administered a final free association test-list, followed by Guil¬ ford’s Unusual Uses test. Forty-eight hours later the other experimental and control group were presented the same final test. Results showed both of the experimental (trained) groups to be more original than the

A fifth group received the final free asso¬ ciation test-list only, and was compared on this test to the control group that had taken

control groups on both tests—significant for all comparisons except the 48-hour delayed free association test. In comparing the two

both initial and final tests. No significant difference was found. The major finding demonstrated all three experimental (trained) groups to be signif¬ icantly more original than the control group. Experimental groups X5 and X10 (those who

experimental groups with one another, and the two control groups with one another, the only significant difference occurred in the case of the two experimental groups on the free association test. Here the group which took the final test one hour after training was

had received five and ten practice lists respec¬ tively) were significantly more original than

significantly more original than the group which took the tests 48 hours after training.

experimental group X1} which had received only one practice list.

The authors conclude that the results lend further support to the hypothesis that “orig¬ inality is a learned form of behavior which does not differ in principle from other forms of operant behavior.”

All experimental (trained) groups were also significantly more original than the control group on the Unusual Uses test. How¬ ever, experimental groups Xl5 X5 and X10 did not differ significantly from one another. The authors conclude that the results tentatively support the hypothesis that “orig¬ inality is a form of learned behavior following the same principles as other forms of operant behavior.” Maltzman, Irving; Simon, Seymore; and

Mandell, Milton M., “Measuring Orig¬ inality in the Physical Sciences,” Educa¬ tional and Psychological Measurement, Vol. X, 1950, pp. 380-385. This study was designed to investigate selection methods for physicists, chemists, and engineers in order to determine which meth¬

Licht, Leonard, “The Persistence of Orig¬ inality Training Effects,” University of

ods seem to be the best predictors of ability to perform research work in the physical sciences.

California, Department of Psychology, August, 1959, Technical Report 4, Pre¬ pared under contract Nonr 233(50) for the Office of Naval Research.

The subjects for this experiment were a group of more than 600 chemists, physicists, and engineers.

This experiment was designed to ascer¬ tain the degree of persistence of originality

Subjects were rated by colleagues and supervisors on originality of thinking or crea¬ tive thinking based on a five-point rating

COMPENDIUM

OF

RESEARCH

scale. In instances where a subject received a rating from more than one colleague or super¬ visor, as in the case of scientists conducting basic research work, an average rating was computed. A battery of n tests was administered to the subjects. These tests were: (1) figure analysis test, (2) formulation tests, (3) sub¬ ject matter tests, (4) vocabulary test, (5) Gottschaldt figures, (6) letter series, (7) table reading, (8) interpretation of data, (9) hy¬ potheses, (10) scrambled sentences, and (11) spatial relation. Because of the lack of testing time available, the tests were abbreviated, “in some cases probably to a level below that needed for obtaining significant data on their value or lack of value.” An analysis of the data revealed that significant correlations were produced be¬ tween subject matter tests and ratings on originality. The formulation test was found to be most useful in differentiating research from non-research personnel. Differences between samples of research and non-research person¬ nel on this test were found to be significant at the .01 level of confidence. Although the other tests produced sig¬ nificant results, “their usefulness was more limited.”

Meadow, Arnold, and Parnes, Sidney J., “Evaluation of Training in Creative Problem-Solving,” journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. XLIII, 1959, pp. 189194. The experiment was designed to evaluate the effects of a creative problem-solving course on creative abilities and selected personality variables. This threefold hypothesis was tested: The method employed in the course would produce a significant increment (a) in quantity of ideas, (b) in quality of ideas, and

ON

CREATIVE

IMAGINATION

J55

ments on the two measures of quantity of ideas. 2. The experimental as compared with the control group attained significant incre¬ ments on three out of five measures of quality of ideas. 3. The experimental as compared with the control group showed a significant incre¬ ment on the California Psychological Inven¬ tory Dominance scale. Results are interpreted to indicate that the creative problem-solving course produces a significant increment on certain ability measures associated with practical creativity, as well as on tire personality variable domi¬ nance.

Meadow, Arnold; Parnes, Sidney }.; and Reese, Hayne, “Influence of Brainstorm¬ ing Instructions and Problem Sequence on a Creative Problem-Solving Test,” journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. XLIII, 1959, pp. 413-416. The experiment was designed to study the effects on creative problem-solving of in¬ structions to express ideas as leads to solu¬ tions without concurrent evaluation (deferredjudgment) and of instructions which required only ideas of good quality and which in¬ volved a penalty for ideas of bad quality (concurrent-judgment). Each subject was given two problems which required creative ability, in two testing periods. One problem was administered under deferred-judgment instructions; the other problem was admin¬ istered under concurrent-judgment instruc¬ tions. The quality of the solutions was later evaluated by a trained rater. The major findings of the experiment were the following:

creative problem-solving course. The follow¬

1. Significantly more good ideas for solu¬ tions were produced under the brainstorming instructions than under the non-brainstorming instructions. 2. Significantly more good solutions were produced under the deferred-judgment in¬ structions when they were given first than when they followed concurrent-judgment in¬ structions.

ing results were obtained: x. The experimental as compared with the control group attained significant incre¬

There was no significant difference in the concurrent-judgment performance in the two test periods.

(c) in the three personality variables—need achievement, dominance, and self-control. A battery of ten test measures was ad¬ ministered to matched experimental and con¬ trol groups at the beginning and end of a

356

APPENDIX

Meer,

Bernard,

A

L,

Meyer, Priscilla, “A Study of the Produc¬

“Measures of Intelligence and Creativity,” Journal of Psychology, Vol. XXXIX, 1955,

and

Stein,

Morris

tion of Creative Ideas,” American Psy¬ chologist, Vol. VIII, 1953, p. 404.

pp. 117-126. This study was designed to investigate the relationship between intelligence test scores and creativity among subjects actively engaged in research. A group of 64 male research chemists employed in two departments of the research division of a large industrial organization were used as subjects. None were over fifty years of age, and all were selected on the basis of: (1) ability to do independent re¬ search, and (2) being known well enough by the department head so that he could judge the subjects’ creativity. The supervisors of the two departments involved were instructed to rank their men for creativity in accordance with their in¬ dividual criteria. Both supervisors regarded quantity and quality of ideas as important factors in ranking for creativity; one of them also regarded the ability to do something about one’s ideas as equally important. One month later the department heads again ranked their chemists. Reliabilities of these rankings were significant at the .001 level of confidence. A subject’s final creativity score consisted of an average of his two rankings. The Wechsler-Bellevue Intelligence Scale and the Miller Analogies Test were used as measures of intelligence. An analysis of the results revealed that age, length of service in organization, and total professional experience were not related to creativity. Subjects with Ph.D. degrees were judged as significantly more creative than those without such degrees. The “consolidated” results revealed a significant relationship between intelligence and creativity. However, further analysis showed that when education was held con¬ stant this relationship no longer held true for subjects with Ph.D. degrees. It was there¬ fore hypothesized, “that where equal oppor¬ tunity is available, higher IQ scores beyond a certain point, (approximately at the 95th percentile) have relatively little significance for creative work as compared to personality and social factors.”

This study deals with the development of a method for evaluating experimentally pro¬ duced ideas and for determining the type of person most likely to produce such ideas. Two hundred University of Akron stu¬ dents were used as subjects. The subjects were instructed to produce all the ideas they could think of in four minutes time, for each of three civic problems. “New and strange” ideas were especially sought Subjects also received scores on a 20-item Ethnocentrism Scale and the ACE test. For the purpose of analysis, each individ¬ ual’s ideas on one of the three problems was rated by three independent raters. Thirtyone high scores on the E Scale were then matched for intelligence to 31 low scores according to ACE test scores. Athough no difference was found between the highs and lows in number of responses produced, the lows significantly out-performed the highs in the number of differentiable and original ideas produced. The highs had a “greater number of responses which were denials of the problem.” Both groups produced approxi¬ mately equal quantities of restrictive and ex¬ pansive ideas. Mooney, Ross L., “Report of Beginning Research On the Definition and Develop¬ ment of Creative Behavior,” Bureau of Educational Research, Ohio State Univer¬ sity, February 8, 1954. Research was conducted on the question of how creative persons relate themselves to facets of their experiencing while creation is under way. Creative persons in a variety of fields were asked to give reports on their experi¬ ences in creating. Approximately 800 descrip¬ tive ways of relating were assembled and screened. An analysis of the screened items show that “tire creative person (a) holds himself open to the flowing of his experiencing, (b) focuses his experiencing through self-differen¬ tiation, self-realization, (c) manages his actions to serve the flowing and focusing, and

COMPENDIUM

OF

RESEARCH

ON

CREATIVE

IMAGINATION

357

(d) derives significance by coming to esthetic formings.”

successful industrialists and professional in¬ dividuals.

The four descriptive statements were re¬ worded as categories under which 266 se¬ lected items were classified into “A Prelim¬ inary Listing of Indices of Creative Behavior.”

The subjects were administered a battery of six tests: Bender-Gestalt, Rorschach, Thematic Apperception Test, Human Figure Drawings and Vigotsky Concept Formation Test.

Mosing, Lionel Wadell, “Development of

The results showed that subjects in the creative group (1) used significantly greater amounts of primary thought process without an increase in anxiety, (2) produced signif¬ icantly fewer signs of repression, (3) possessed a significantly higher degree of basic primary affect to external stimuli, (4) showed evi¬ dences of other personality differences.

a Multi-Media Creativity Test,” Disserta¬ tion Abstracts, Vol. XIX, 1959, p. 2137. This study was designed to develop valid and convenient measures of some generic aspects of creativity or originality. A series of six tests using inventive (completion-type) items and selective-response items was ad¬ ministered to a group of college seniors ma¬ joring in aeronautical engineering. Of the six tests, the completion-type response tests were significantly related to creativity. These tests were combined to form the Multi-Media Creativity Test (MMCT). Further testing with two differently de¬ fined groups showed that the MMCT scores made valid discriminations between persons judged more creative and those judged less creative. It was concluded that, in general, tests requiring inventive or completion-type re¬ sponses were significantly related to creativ¬ ity. The author states, “It would seem that creative ability, or some generic aspects of that ability, could be quite satisfactorily measured by the associative responses made by persons to commonly experienced stim¬ uli.” Myden, Walter D., “An Interpretation and Evaluation of Certain Personality Characteristics Involved in Creative Pro¬ duction: An Investigation and Evaluation of Personality Structure and Character¬ istics of Creative Individuals in the Con¬ text of Psychoanalytic Theory and Ego Psychology,” Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. XVII, 1957, pp. 897-898. This study was designed to explore per¬ sonality characteristics involved in creative production. A group of 20 recognized crea¬ tively productive individuals in the fields of painting, writing, composition and choreog¬ raphy were equated for age, sex and socio¬ economic status to a group of 20 eminently

Nicholson, Patrick James, “An Experi¬ mental Investigation of the Effects of Training upon Creativity,” doctoral dis¬ sertation, University of Houston, May, 1959. This study was designed to investigate the effects of training 32 subjects in creativ¬ ity, using all of the following six methods in a 45-hour training course: (1) lecture and discussion of the main points in Osborn’s Applied Imagination and Teacher’s Guide; (2) Arnold’s “other-world” technique; (3) lecture and discussion of “traditional” ap¬ proaches to problem-solving; (4) actual time in brainstorming; (5) training with locallyproduced materials such as an adaptation of Guilford’s Association Test; (6) miscellaneous procedures such as Maltzman’s “word asso¬ ciation in depth” technique. The 32 experimental subjects were first administered a battery of seven predictor measures, including a form of Guilford’s Con¬ sequences Test. After the training course, an alternate form of the Consequences Test was administered. Seventy-five control subjects were also given alternate (before and after) forms of the Consequences Test. Two significant results occurred: 1. The experimental group improved significantly in the production of remote or uncommon ideas on the Consequences Test, as compared with the control group. 2. A significant relationship was found between four of the five factors in the Sheer Self-Concept Test and improvement in the production of obvious ideas.

358

APPENDIX

A

tive and High Miller Analogies Members Owens, W. A.; Schumacher, C. F.; and

of The Summer Guidance Institute,” Re¬ search Memorandum BER-59-13, Bureau of Educational Research, University of

Clark, J. B., “The Measurement of Crea¬ tivity in Machine Design,” Report of Re¬ search Conference on the Identification of Creative Scientific Talent, University of Utah, August 17-20, 1957, pp. 129140. The purpose of this research was to de¬ velop and evaluate tests to discriminate crea¬ tive from non-creative machine designers. Creative designers were defined as “per¬ sons who have demonstrated the ability to comprehend the nature of a design problem, and to produce a novel, ingenious, or origi¬ nal solution in the form of a total, functional, and practical mechanism.” Non-creative de¬ signers were described as “persons whose major function is to work out the details of a design.” The creative and non-creative groups were matched for age, education, and experience. Nine measuring devices were devised. These were item-analyzed and cross-validated against a primary criterion of rated creativity or non-creativity of 295 engineers in 31 in¬ dustrial companies. A secondary criterion was derived from a sample of 76 individuals revealed to be creative by the U.S. Patent Index (number of patents held). This sample allowed for some evaluation of the primary criterion of company creativity ratings, and also allowed for some cross-validation of the Personal In¬ ventory and Personal History Form, both of which were mailed to the secondary sample group for their responses. After item-analysis and cross-validation, four instruments remained in a revised bat¬ tery: (1) Power Source Apparatus Test, (2)

Minnesota, September, 1959. This study was designed to test for dif¬ ferences between a group of graduate students high on the Test of Creative Thinking and a group of like students high on the Miller Analogies Test. Differences were measured in: (1) academic achievement, as evidenced on the Guidance Achievement Test (given before and after a Summer Guidance In¬ stitute), Cooperative Mathematics Test, and Cooperative English Test; and (2) personal¬ ity, attitude and interest, as evidenced on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, Edwards Personal Preference Schedule, Min¬ nesota Teacher Attitude Inventory, Strong Vocational Interest Blank.

and

From 70 subjects (guidance counselors enrolled in a Summer Guidance Institute) two groups of ten each were identified: (1) Subjects who ranked among the upper 20% of the 70 subjects on the Miller Analogies Test, but not among the upper 20% on the Test of Creative Thinking; (2) Subjects who ranked among the upper 20% on the Test of Creative Thinking, but not among the upper 20% on the Miller Analogies Test. (Four subjects in the upper 20% on both measures were excluded from the analysis.) The group which was high on the Miller Analogies Test (intelligence) scored signif¬ icantly better on the Guidance Achievement Test and the Cooperative Mathematics Test. There was no significant difference between the two groups on the Cooperative English Test, nor in the amount of gain (from “pre” to

post”) on the Guidance Achievement Test

Applications of Mechanisms Test, (3) Per¬ sonal Inventory, and (4) Personal History

after the completion of the Guidance Institute.

Form. Reliability and validity coefficients are presented for the various tests.

Of the four personality, attitude and in¬ terest measures only five scales of the Ed¬

The authors mention evidence, as a re¬ sult of the experiment, that “creatives” are not differentiated from “non-creatives” by general mental ability. They also present evi¬

wards Personal Preference Schedule showed significant differences. The group that was high on the Test of Creative Thinking

dence that creativity is somewhat “specific” to the field in question. Palm, Harold J., “An Analysis of TestScore Differences Between Highly Crea¬

showed greater needs on Deference, Exhibi¬ tion, Succorance, Abasement, and Change scales. The author discusses implications of the above findings in relation to other similar research with grade and high school students.

COMPENDIUM

OF

RESEARCH

Parnes, Sidney J., “Effects of Extended Effort in Creative Problem-Solving,” Creative Education Foundation, Buffalo, mimeographed report, i960. [Now pub¬ lished in the Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. LII, 1961, pp. 117122.] Two experiments were conducted. Ex¬ periment I was designed to test the hypothesis that more good ideas will appear in the last half of a subject’s total idea output regarding a problem than during the first half. Each subject was given a creative thinking problem which involved production of ideas for a fiveminute period. The resultant ideas were eval¬ uated by a trained rater. Number of good ideas was tallied for the first half of each subject’s total idea list, and for the second half of his list. The findings demonstrated significantly more good ideas to appear in the last half than in the first half of the idea lists. A significant relationship was also found between total quantity and total quality scores. Experiment II was designed to deter¬ mine whether the type of results found in Experiment I with untrained subjects would also occur with subjects trained in the use of Osborn’s principle of deferment-of-judg¬ ment. It was also decided to lengthen the time period to 15 minutes instead of 5, in order to see if a trend could be observed towards increasingly greater proportions of good ideas as a subject’s total quantity in¬ creases. Each subject was given 15 minutes to produce ideas regarding the same creative thinking problem as in Experiment I. Re¬ sultant ideas were evaluated as in the first experiment. Number of good ideas was tallied

ON

CREATIVE

IMAGINATION

559

creative thinking problem tends to reward problem-solvers with a greater proportion of good ideas among the later ideas on their lists. Parnes, Sidney J.; and Meadow, Arnold, “Effects of ‘Brainstorming’ Instructions on Creative Problem-Solving by Trained and Untrained Subjects,” Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. L,

1959,

pp. 171-176. The experiment was designed to study the effects on creative problem-solving (by untrained subjects) of: (1) Instructions to express ideas for solutions without evaluation (deferred-judgment), (2) Instructions which required only ideas of good quality (concur¬ rent-judgment). The design also allowed for a study of the effects of training in a creative problem-solving course which emphasizes the deferred-judgment principle. Each of the subjects (one group un¬ trained, the other trained) was given two problems designed to measure creative ability, in two testing periods. One problem was ad¬ ministered under deferred-judgment instruc¬ tions; the other problem was administered under concurrent-judgment instructions. The quality of the solutions was later evaluated by a trained rater. The major findings were as follows: 1. Significantly more good quality ideas were produced under deferred-judgment in¬ structions than under concurrent-judgment instructions. 2. The subjects trained in a creative problem-solving course emphasizing the de¬ ferred-judgment principle produced a signifi¬ cantly greater number of good quality ideas when using the technique than did the un¬

last

trained students. An additional result yielded by the analy¬

Third. The findings showed significantly more

sis of data indicated a significant positive correlation between quantity and quality of

for each Third of each subject’s total idea list—first

Third,

middle

Third,

and

good ideas to appear in the final Third of the subjects’ idea lists. Although there was not a significant difference between first and second “Thirds,” a trend is suggested towards in¬ creasingly larger proportions of good ideas with increased quantity. The results are interpreted to indicate that extended effort in producing ideas on a

ideas. The findings are interpreted to indicate that the deferred-judgment instruction is an effective method for increasing the produc¬ tion of good ideas in a particular type of creative thinking problem, and that it is even more effective if preceded by extensive train¬ ing in its use.

j6o

APPENDIX

A

Parnes, Sidney J., and Meadow, Arnold, “Evaluation of Persistence of Effects Pro¬ duced by a Creative Problem-Solving Course,” Psychological Reports, Vol. VII,

i960, pp. 357-361. An experiment was designed to evaluate the persistence of the effects produced by a Creative Problem-Solving course. Matched experimental and control groups were compared on six creative ability tests which had yielded significant or nearly sig¬ nificant results in a previous experiment evaluating the Creative Problem-Solving course. Experimental subjects were ones who had completed the course from eight months to four years before the experiment. Control subjects were students registered, but unin¬ structed, in the Creative Problem-Solving course. No subject had ever before taken the creative thinking tests. Results indicated that the experimental (trained) subjects outperformed two separate groups of control subjects on all six measures. All of these measures were significant by com¬ parison with one control group; all but two were significant in the case of the second control group. Results are interpreted to demonstrate that increased productivity in creative thinking produced by the Creative Problem-Solving course persists for a period of eight months or more after the completion of the course. The duplication of data with two control groups adds to the confidence with which the null hypothesis may be re¬ jected.

Racusen, Frances R., “An Exploratory In¬ vestigation of the Creativity and Produc¬ tivity Variables on the Rorschach and Thematic Apperception Tests,” Ph.D. thesis submitted to the University of Iowa, 1952 (Abstract). This study was designed to: (1) investi¬ gate assertions concerning creativity and pro¬ ductivity relationships on the Rorschach and Thematic Apperception Tests, (2) investigate any relationship between these measures and intelligence and verbal fluency; and (3) ex¬ amine diagnostic group differences on crea¬ tivity and productivity variables. A total of 90 subjects were used including

50 normal, 20 schizophrenic and 20 neurotic hospitalized patients. They were administered the Rorschach, TAT and CVS Abbreviated Intelligence Scale. Forty of the subjects were also given two verbal fluency tests. An analysis of the data revealed that when the intelligence factor was overlooked, significant relationships were found between Rorschach and TAT measures of creativity and productivity. However, when intelligence was held constant the relationships decreased; the one between the creativity measures de¬ creased to a non-significant level. There were no significant relationships found between verbal fluency and any of the other variables. It was concluded that: “(a) assertions about creativity and productivity relationships between projective tests do not appear to be highly valid; (b) intelligence bears a signif¬ icant relationship only to creativity measures; (c) findings cast doubt on a common trait of productivity and (d) diagnostic group differ¬ ences appeared on measures of creativity and productivity.”

Schimek, J. G., “Creative Originality: Its Evaluation by the Use of Free-Expression Tests,” Ph.D. dissertation submitted to the University of California, 1954. This study was designed to: (1) derive a performance measure of creative originality, (2) evaluate its validity, and (3) investigate any relationships between this measure and personality variables. A group of 80 University of California graduate students were used as subjects. They were interviewed and administered a group of objective tests and assessment procedures during a series of three-day living-in assess¬ ments. The following seven “free-expression” tests were included among the assessment pro¬ cedures:

(1)

Thematic Apperception

Test,

(2) Rorschach, (3) Bennett Productive Think¬ ing Test, (4) Levy Movement Ink Blots, (5) Sentence Completion Test, (6) Turney Color Patterns, and (7) Franck Drawing Comple¬ tion Test. The subjects also received faculty ratings on originality, potential success, and personal soundness. Each subject was then rated for original¬ ity based on his two most original perform-

COMPENDIUM

OF

RESEARCH

ances. An analysis revealed significant corre¬ lations between this originality index and (a) the faculty ratings, (b) independent tests of originality, and (c) assessment staff ratings of originality. It was found that originality was primar¬ ily related to: (a) “intellectual competence and breadth of interests; and (b) independ¬ ence of mind and self-assertiveness.” Simberg, A. L., and Shannon, T. E., ‘The Effect of AC Creativity Training on the AC Suggestion Program,” AC Spark Plug Division of General Motors Cor¬ poration, mimeographed report, March 27, 1959. Eighteen employees with high suggestion records and thirteen employees with low suggestion records were used as subjects. Both groups were administered the AC Creativity Test, which differentiated between them sig¬ nificantly. The subjects took part in a ten-week creativity training program consisting of weekly one-hour sessions. Records of sugges¬ tions submitted by both experimental groups for one year before training and one year after training were kept. Comparisons were then made between these experimental groups and the control group (the rest of the plant employees who had not taken the training program) on the basis of: (1) Number of suggestions submitted, (2) Number of sug¬ gestions accepted, (3) Amount of money earned in awards for accepted suggestions. An analysis of the results revealed that both experimental (trained) groups, as com¬ pared with the control group, showed signif¬ icant gains on all three criteria. It was also found that the high suggestion group main¬ tained its record and position as the high suggestion group throughout the experiment.

ON

CREATIVE

IMAGINATION

j6l

Sprecher, Thomas B., “An Investigation of Criteria for Creativity in Engineers,” Ph.D. thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Maryland, 1957. This study was designed to explore some variables and interrelationships that affect ratings of creativity in a large engineering firm. A group of 107 engineers from the Westinghouse Air Arm Division of Baltimore, Maryland, were used as subjects. They were administered a series of Guilford’s factored tests (Plot Titles, Synonyms, Sign Changes, and Vocabulary Test) and three brief realistic engineering problems developed by the plant supervisors. Biographical data such as work experience, age, number of patent disclosures in the past year, and degrees held were also collected for each of the subjects. They then received creativity ratings both from super¬ visors and peers. Correlations in the mid .8o’s were found between raters, in rating men and in rating answers to tests. Further analysis revealed that the peer ratings contained more emphasis on originality than the supervisors’ ratings. It was concluded that performance cri¬ teria, such as rated answers to realistic en¬ gineering problems, seem to be more pre¬ dictable of creativity than any other criteria in the study. This study, however, did not provide “definite predictors” for the selection or training of creative engineers. Stein,

Morris

I.,

and

Meer,

Bernard,

“Perceptual Organization In a Study of Creativity,” Journal of Psychology, Vol. XXXVII, 1954, pp. 39-43. This is a study designed to test the dif¬

quality of suggestions as well as the quan¬

ferences in responses to ambiguous stimuli in a group of creative research chemists. It was hypothesized that tire more creative subjects would develop more hypotheses and better Gestalten under varying conditions of am¬ biguity than the less creative scientists. (Ge¬

tity of suggestions. The authors conclude that the results of this study support the hypothesis that giving

stalten is expressed as “a function of the perceiver, his needs, defense mechanisms, and integration, and the characteristics of the

creativity training to employees proves to be

stimulus-field.”) Eighteen research chemists were indi-

Considering the amount paid in awards as an index to the quality of suggestions, there was significant evidence of an increase by both of the experimental (trained) groups in the

beneficial to the suggestion program.

^62

appendix

a

vidually rated for creativity by their superiors and colleagues. Each subject was tested on a series of io standard Rorschach Cards ex¬ posed in a tachistoscope at four different ex¬ posure levels—(from o.i second to full exposure)—in order to vary the ambiguity of the stimuli. Only the subject’s first responses were scored (in terms of an 8-point rating scale). A total weighted score was computed for each subject. Analysis of the results showed a high correlation between the weighted form-level score and the creativity-variable (significant at the .01 level of confidence). The more crea¬ tive chemists responded with a greater num¬ ber of hypotheses as well as a greater number of well-integrated responses (also significant at the .01 level). The findings suggested that creativity may be affected by personality fac¬

—each contained six variables to be rated, in¬ cluding originality, quality of work, and quan¬ tity of work. All subjects were administered a series of five tests: (1) Vocational Interest Blank for Men, (2) Form B of the Concept Mastery Test, (3) Form C C of the Mechanical Com¬ prehension Test, (4) Test of Productive Thinking, and (5) search Personnel.

Test for Selecting Re¬

An analysis of the data revealed sig¬ nificant correlations between each of the last three tests and either (1) ratings of creativity made by immediate supervisors or (2) the means of the ratings of creativity made by the two supervisors. High correlations were also found to exist between ratings of creativity

tors such as defensiveness and over-criticalness.

and productivity made on check-list scales, as compared with ratings of originality, quality and quantity of work made on die descrip¬ tive scales.

Taylor, Donald W., “Variables Related to Creativity and Productivity among Men

At the Naval Ordnance Test Station a similar but more limited study was made

in Two Research Laboratories,” Report prepared under Project NR 150-149 and

with a group of 66 physicists as subjects. They were rated by their immediate super¬ visors using the descriptive rating scale de¬ signed for non-supervisory personnel. The

supported by Contract N6onr 25125 be¬ tween Stanford University and the Office of Naval Research, 1958. This report deals with two studies de¬ signed to explore the relation of certain test and other variables to the creativity and pro¬ ductivity of men engaged in research or de¬ velopment work at the Navy Electronics Lab¬ oratory in San Diego and at the Naval Ordnance Test Station at China Lake, Cali¬ fornia. A group of 103 subjects composed mainly of electronics engineers and scientists were used in the first study. The subjects were independently rated for creativity and productivity by both their immediate supervisors and their secondary supervisors. Specially designed check-list rating scales for creativity and productivity were used by the raters. Correlations between subject ratings by immediate supervisors and second¬ ary supervisors was .57 for creativity and .49 for productivity. Four months later the same supervisors were asked to rate the same subjects using two additional descriptive scales. These scales one for supervisory, one for non-supervisory

subjects were also administered the Test for Selecting Research Personnel. An analysis of the results of this study revealed a somewhat higher correlation be¬ tween the Test for Selecting Research Per¬ sonnel and the descriptive ratings of orig¬ inality and quality of work than in the previous study.

Taylor, Donald W.; Berry, Paul C.; and Block, Clifford H., “Does Group Par¬ ticipation When Using Brainstorming Facilitate or Inhibit Creative Thinking,” Yale University, Department of Indus¬ trial Administration and Department of Psychology, November, 1957, Technical Report 1, Prepared under contract Nonr 609(20) (NR 150-166) for Office of Naval Research. This experiment was designed to in¬ vestigate “whether group participation when using brainstorming facilitates or inhibits crea¬ tive thinking.” Of the total 96 male undergraduate sub¬ jects used, 48 were divided into 12 experi-

COMPENDIUM

OF

RESEARCH

mental groups of four, with the remaining 48 serving as individual subjects. All sub¬ jects were instructed to follow brainstorming rules and procedure during the test situation. The test situation consisted of a series of three problems to be attacked. A response time of twelve minutes for each problem was allowed to both experimental groups and in¬ dividual subjects. All experimental sessions were recorded. An analysis of the results showed a significant difference (beyond the .0001 level) in favor of the groups, between the mean score (average number of ideas) produced by the 12 groups as against the mean score of the 48 individuals, on each of the problems. As a further analysis, the 48 individual subjects were randomly divided into 12 “nom¬ inal” groups of four each (by combining out¬ puts of each four individuals and cancelling duplications of ideas). A comparison of results between the two types of groups (real vs. “nominal”) was conducted for each test problem. In this com¬ parison the “real” groups were found inferior to the “nominal” groups.

Taylor, Donald W., and Block, Clifford H., “Should Group or Individual Work Come First on Problems Requiring Crea¬ tive Thinking When Equal Time is De¬ voted to Each?” Report prepared under Project NR 150-166, contract Nonr 609 (20) between Yale University and the Office of Naval Research.

ON

CREATIVE

IMAGINATION

j6j

a given number of individuals working alone than by the same individuals working in a group, regardless whether individual work came before or after group work.

Torrance, E. Paul, “Explorations in Crea¬ tive Thinking in the Early School Years,” a series of Research Memoranda, Bureau of Educational Research, University of Minnesota, 1959. The author is engaged in a series of studies regarding the development of creative thinking from kindergarten through graduate school. This report summarizes the experi¬ ments. Some of the highlights follow. Subjects in the experiments have been ap¬ proximately 1400 children in the first through sixth grades and over 1500 college students and adults. Eight different testing instru¬ ments have been developed for assessing vari¬ ous components of creative thinking. Seven preliminary curves of growth in various aspects of creative ability are charted. These curves are plotted for males and for females, from grades one through six, and adult. There are various growth spurts evident in the charts, as well as some declines. Most of the curves show steady growth from first through third grade, with sharp declines be¬ tween third and fourth grade, followed by growth at least through sixth grade and be¬ tween sixth grade and adults. A notable ex¬ ception is the ability to form hypotheses about causation. Preliminary findings are cited regarding

ference in the number of ideas produced whether group or individual work comes

the relationship of sex to inventiveness; also the effect of manipulativeness of objects by students on the quantity and quality of ideas produced, in problems that involve the pos¬ sible manipulation of objects. Studies were also conducted concerning attitudes of peers toward creative students, and of group pres¬ sures applied to creative students. In one study, subjects in first through sixth grades were trained to use some of the principles from Osborn’s textbook, AppliedImagination. There was a consistent tendency for these trained students to be more fluent, more flexible, and more clever in their re¬ sponses than were the untrained students. Research is reported concerning the rela¬

first. However, more ideas were produced by

tionship of IQ and creativity. Among a group

A group of 72 undergraduate students at Stanford University were used as subjects during four days of experimentation. The subjects were randomly divided into two groups and administered nine problems in the same order (two problems on each of the first three days and three problems on the fourth day). The subjects in one group spent the first half of the working time on each problem in groups of three and the second half working alone. The remaining subjects followed the reverse of this procedure. It was concluded that within the condi¬ tions of this study there is no significant dif¬

j6^

APPENDIX

A

of high IQ students (132 and up) there was practically no relationship between creativity and IQ scores. In more normal classes the relationship was somewhat closer between the two factors.

This

research

was

conducted

to:

(1)

study the effect of attitudes on idea produc¬ tion, creative behavior and problem-solving achievements; (2) design and validate a series of statements that will measure the rela¬ tionship between attitudes and idea produc¬ tion, creative behavior and problem-solving

One finding indicated that about 70% of the creative students were excluded if IQ alone were used to identify “giftedness.” In general, the preliminary results with subjects in die early school years supported those of Getzels and Jackson (reviewed on p. 349) whose subjects were at the secondary level. The results also support the findings of Get¬ zels and Jackson that highly creative children tend to become estranged from their teach¬ ers.

which then underwent numerous reliability tests. Experiments were then conducted which consisted of a ten-minute creativity test (C3X) followed by a 45-minute creativity presenta¬

Torrance, E. Paul, “Sex Role Identifica¬ tion and Creativity: An Exploratory

tion and then special post-tests (C3X). The resulting information was analyzed and a new creativity test (DX4) was devised and

Study,” Research Memorandum BER59-10, Bureau of Educational Research, University of Minnesota, August, 1959. This was an exploratory study of the following tentative hypothesis: On mascu¬ linity-femininity scales, highly creative indi¬ viduals tend to be higher in the direction of the opposite sex than do less creative indi¬ viduals.

achievements; (3) analyze the effect on an in¬ dividual’s attitudes of exposure to specific creativity concepts. Based upon previous experience and re¬ search, the author designed a creativity test

administered,

employing

the

previous

ex¬

perimental methodology, with the addition of a delayed post-test. It was concluded that, in general, the creativity presentation affected attitudes in a positive direction. However, the degree to which the presentation resulted in a lasting change in attitude was found to be non¬ significant.

Seventy school counselors were used as subjects (57 males and 13 females). Scores were available for each subject on the mascu¬

The author concludes that more study and research is needed on the test items.

linity-femininity scales of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory and the Strong

True, G. Herbert, “Creativity as a Func¬ tion of Idea Fluency, Practicability, and

Vocational Interest Blank, as well as on a battery of creative thinking tests.

Specific Training,” Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. XVII, 1957, pp. 401-402.

Results showed no significant relation¬ ships between the total creativity scores and either of the masculinity-femininity scores, for either males or females. Further analyses of the data demon¬ strated certain significant differences for which the author offers possible explanations. It is suggested that the problem seems worthy of further investigation with a variety of age and special interest or ability groups. True, G. Herbert, “Creativity, Creative Behavior, Idea Production or ProblemSolving as a Function of an Individual’s Attitudes,” Paper given at the SAMASME Management Engineering Con¬ ference, New York, April 24, 1959.

The threefold purpose of this experiment was to investigate: (1) the effects that ex¬ posure to creativity principles has upon idea production, (2) the relationship between quantity and quality of idea production, and (3) the relationship between intelligence and creativity. A group of 200 freshmen students at the State University of Iowa were used as sub¬ jects. They were divided into experimental and control groups and administered a crea¬ tivity pre-test. The experimental group was then exposed to a fifty-minute creativity pres¬ entation. This was followed by an administra¬ tion of the creativity post-test to both the ex¬ perimental and control groups. An analysis of the results showed ex-

COMPENDIUM

OF

RESEARCH

posure to the creativity principles to have a positive effect on both the quantity and qual¬ ity aspects of idea production. However, the degree to which an individual improved on the quantity aspect of idea production was directly proportioned to his initial abil¬ ity. A correlation of .866 was found to exist between the quantity and quality aspects of idea production. No significant correlation was found between intelligence and creativity as measured in this study.

Van Zelst, Raymond H., and Kerr, Wil¬ lard A., “Some Correlates of Technical and Scientific Productivity,” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. XLVI,

1951,

pp.

470-475.

This study was designed to investigate the relationships of a group of variables to scientific and technical creativeness. A questionnaire designed to gather data on the attitudes, working habits, practices, and technical and scientific productivity (number of publications and inventions— weighted) was mailed to a group of scien¬ tific and technical personnel of the Illinois Institute of Technology and the Armour Re¬ search Foundation. The data received from 194 respondents was then analyzed. Ignoring the age factor, the following variables were found to be significantly re¬ lated to the scientific and technical produc¬ tivity of the subjects: (1) number of degrees held, (2) occupational rank, (3) number of honorary and professional memberships, (4) number untary strength disbelief groups.

of journals read, (5) belief in vol¬ determination of deadlines, (6) of selflessness of motive, and (7) in equalitarian practices in research

When the age factor was controlled, following variables were still found to significantly correlated to productivity: number of degrees held, (2) disbelief

the be (1) in

equalitarian practices in research groups, and (3) strong belief in voluntary determination of deadlines. An analysis of curvilinear relationships suggests that “maximal productivity of these subjects is achieved with optimal conditions of about (a) 28 hrs. per week of regimented

ON

CREATIVE

IMAGINATION

^65

time, and (b) 3.5 hrs. per day of related but spontaneously voluntary home work.” Van Zelst, Raymond H., and Kerr, Wil¬ lard A., “A Further Note on Some Cor¬ relates of Scientific and Technical Pro¬ ductivity,” Journal of Abnormal and So¬ cial Psychology, Vol. XLVII, 1952, p. 129. Using Tyron’s B-coefficient method of cluster analysis, the fourteen variables in the previous study were grouped into three clus¬ ters: Cluster A”—Variables in this cluster emphasized creative productivity and atti¬ tudes towards creative productivity—“creative ability”: disbelief in equalitarian practices in research; voluntary determination of dead¬ lines; selflessness of motive; accumulated in¬ ventions and publications (with age held con¬ stant). Cluster "B”—Variables in this cluster emphasized training and time to exploit train¬ ing—“opportunity”: academic degrees; occu¬ pational rank; age; accumulated inventions and publications. Cluster “C”—Variables in this cluster emphasized “industriousness”: honorary and professional organization memberships; num¬ ber of job-related journals read; total home¬ work hours; total work-place hours. It was summarized that “high scientific and technical attainment has been the in¬ dustrious application of creative ability to opportunity.”

Walker, Donald E., “Consistent Char¬ acteristics in the Behavior of Creative Mathematicians and Chemists,” Ameri¬ can Psychologist, Vol. VII, 1952, p. 371. This study was designed to investigate any characteristics consistently found in the behavior of highly creative chemists and mathematicians. The subjects consisted of a group of 30 chemists and mathematicians who were rated highly by their colleagues on the basis of: (a) the influence of their writing and other products in providing basic reorientation in their field of specialization and (b) the char¬ acterization of their work methods as involv¬ ing unusual and imaginative ideas, novel per¬ spectives in viewing problems, the formula-

j66

APPENDIX

A

tion of previously unnoticed problems, etc. Subjects were interviewed and admin¬

been previously identified. They included: (1) verbal comprehension, (2) numerical

istered a series of cognitive, perceptual, and

facility, (3) perceptual speed, (4) visualiza¬ tion, (5) general reasoning, (6) word fluency, (7) associational fluency, (8) ideational flu¬

projective tests. An analysis of the results revealed cer¬ tain degrees of sensitivity, flexibility, fluency, originality, breadth, concentration, and indi¬ viduality to be found consistently within the group tested. These characteristics are con¬ sidered basic to creative development in the fields under study. Whelan, Kenneth J., “A Study of In¬ dustrial Analytical and Creative Person¬ nel,” master’s thesis, Western Reserve University, 1959. This research project was designed to ex¬ plore characteristics of creative versus analyti¬ cal engineers in a machine tool manufacturing company. All engineers were rated for per¬ formance by their supervisors. Both types of engineers scored about the same on the Creative Thinking Test. However, those creative engineers scoring above average on the Creative Thinking Test tended to have favorable performance ratings from their supervisors, while this was not so for the analytical engineers. The creative group was significantly higher on an autonomy scale while the analy¬ tical group was significantly higher on a dominance scale. No other significant per¬ sonality differences were discovered. Wilson, Robert C.; Guilford, J. P.; and Christensen, Paul R., “A Factor-Analytic Study of Creative Thinking Abilities,” Psychometri\a, Vol. XIX, 1954, pp. 297-

3«This study was conducted in an attempt to isolate and define abilities in the domain of creative thinking. The subjects used were a group of 410 air cadets and student officers. A series of 53 tests designed to measure factors of creative thinking were administered to the subjects.

ency, and (9) a factor combining Thurstone’s closure I and II. Wilson, Robert C.; Guilford, J. P.; and Christensen, P. R., “The Measurement of Individual Differences in Originality,” Psychological Bulletin, Vol. L, 1953, pp. 362-370. [Entire article appears as Selec¬ tion 20.] This study focuses on the problem of de¬ veloping methods for measuring individual differences in originality. A group of seven tests were designed in connection with three approaches to the meas¬ urement of originality: (1) Uncommonnessof-response in a certain sample under study, (2) Remoteness-of-association, (3) Cleverness, as rated by a group of judges. The subjects, a group of 410 air cadets and student officers, were administered a bat¬ tery of 53 tests including the seven originality measures representing the above three scoring approaches. thors.)

(See study above by same au¬

An analysis of the results showed the seven originality tests to have loadings of be¬ tween .09 and .55 on the originality factor. The Plot Titles (cleverness), Quick Re¬ sponses (uncommonness). Figure Concepts (uncommonness), Unusual Uses (remote¬ ness), and Associations I (remoteness) tests had loadings of .30 and above. In a final review of the three approaches to originality it was concluded that the un¬ commonness and cleverness methods have the greatest amount of the originality-factor vari¬ ance but are the least economical in time and energy required to determine the scores. The remoteness method, although considered a more economical procedure, was found to yield a lower factor loading.

Intercorrelations of test scores revealed 14 identifiable factors of creative thinking, five of which were new: (1) originality, (2) redefinition, (3) adaptive flexibility, (4)

Zaccaria, Michael A.; Chorness, Maury

spontaneous flexibility, and (5) sensitivity to problems. The remaining nine factors had

Analysis and Development Division, Lackland Air Force Base, October, 1956.

H.; Gerry, Robert; and Borg, Walter R., “Student Evaluation and Grading; Pre¬ diction

of Creative

Ability,”

Training

COMPENDIUM

OF

RESEARCH

This study was conducted to determine the validity of Guilford’s creativity tests. A group of 170 aviation cadets were ad¬ ministered ten predictor tests from Guilford’s creativity battery. The subjects were also given a biographical inventory which yielded a crea¬ tive activities score. Correlations were com¬ puted between the creative activities score and the fifteen Guilford test scores. Eleven of the fifteen correlations were found to be statis¬ tically significant. It was recommended that the Guilford tests be used to determine the effectiveness of training programs designed to increase crea¬ tive abilities, inasmuch as the results of the

ON

CREATIVE

IMAGINATION

567

measured in management selection—Paul S. Greenlaw. Dow Chemical Company—Research regard¬ ing the relation of psychological test variables to creative performance—Joe H. McPherson. Educational Testing Service—Studies regard¬ ing the identification of creative talent and re¬ garding problem-solving flexibility—John R. Hills, et al. General Electric Company—Behavioral Re¬ search Service. Experiments regarding crea¬ tivity in problem-solving—Ray Hyman. Harvard University—Bibliographical research project concerning the area of creativity and the teaching of creativity—James B. Conant.

study had indicated validity for die tests.

Institute of Visual Research—Experimenta¬ tion with creative thinking attitude scales—

OTHER RESEARCH

G. Herbert True.

UNDER WAY IN i960

Louisiana State University—Studies regarding brainstorming, including one project testing hypotheses concerning homogeneity of panel members and its effects on group brainstorm¬

The first Compendium, in 1958, re¬ ported pertinent research under way at the following institutions: University of Buffalo; University of Cali¬ fornia; University of Chicago; Creative Re¬ search, Long Beach, California; University of Houston; Iowa State College; Lackland Air Force Base, Texas; Muscoda Public Schools, Muscoda, Wisconsin; University of Notre Dame; Ohio State University; Psychological Business Research, Cleveland, Ohio; Univer¬ sity of Southern California; and University of Utah. During the next 18 months, the follow¬ ing additional research projects were re¬ ported to be in progress: American Institute for Research—Studies re¬ lated to the definition and measurement of ingenuity—John C. Flanagan. The Boston City Hospital—Studies of the re¬ lationship between creativity and the nature of imagery under conditions of sensory dep¬ rivation—Philip Kubzansky. Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences—Studies of attributes of creative in¬ dividuals—Frank Barron. Cornell University—Studies of the relation of creativity to sociological variables—Nor¬ man Kaplan. The Dayton Rubber Company—Studies evalu¬ ating the Creative Thinking Course, and cor¬ relating creative abilities with other traits

ing results—Bernard M. Bass. Michigan State University—Research into the nature of creativity—Harold H. Anderson, et al. Mississippi Southern College—Research com¬ paring quantity and quality output of homo¬ geneous and heterogeneous brainstorming groups—Roland L. Frye. National Merit Scholarship Corporation— Studies involving the identification of crea¬ tive talent—John L. Holland; Consideration of various factors that influence creativity— Donald L. Thistlethwaite. The Pennsylvania State University—Research concerning the correlation of measures of sci¬ entific creative potential and measures of crea¬ tive potential for the arts—Viktor Lowenfeld, et al (in cooperation with Ohio State Uni¬ versity faculty). [Kenneth R. Beittel is con¬ tinuing the Pennsylvania State research since Lowenfeld’s death.] Potomac University—Experiments comparing various discussion techniques, including group brainstorming—Winston H. Beaven. Psychological Service of Pittsburgh—Research into the identification of the meaning of crea¬ tivity—Thomas B. Sprecher. [Sprecher is now at The Psychological Corporation.] Standard Oil Company—Studies involving identification of creative talent in the or-

j6§

APPENDIX

A

ganization—J. R. Glennon, W. J. Smith, L. E. Albright, W. A. Owens.

tific creativity and its motivation—Donald C. Pelz, et al.

University

regarding

University of Minnesota—Research concern¬

brainstorming and regarding the evaluation of creative problem-solving programs; re¬ search into the relationships of creativity, intelligence, and achievement—Sidney }. Parnes.

ing the role of evaluation in developing crea¬ tive thinking—E. Paul Torrance, et al.

of

Buffalo—Research

University of California—Continued experi¬ mental studies in various areas of creativity, being conducted over a five-year period—In¬ stitute of Personality Assessment and Re¬ search. University of Chicago—Studies of highly crea¬ tive and highly intelligent adolescents—J. W. Getzels and P. W. Jackson; continued re¬ search regarding the nature of the creative individual—Morris Stein. [Stein is now at New York University.] University of Illinois—Studies to determine characteristics of the creative individual— Raymond B. Cattell; research concerning group creativity, using subjects with different backgrounds and both with and without for¬ mal leaders—Fred E. Fiedler. University of Michigan—Research on scien¬

University of Southern California—Studies to determine whether the factors of creativity found in adults also apply to sixth and ninth grade students, as well as to “gifted” children; research to ascertain whether there are crea¬ tive abilities more basic to performance in art than those already found; follow-up stud¬ ies of University of Texas and Arizona State University freshman students who have been given creativity tests—J. P. Guilford. University of Utah—Continued studies focus¬ sing on the identification of creative scien¬ tific talent—Calvin W. Taylor, et al. Yale University—Research on creative think¬ ing) problem-solving and decision-making— Donald W. Taylor. Miscellaneous—Numerous doctoral disserta¬ tions have been reported under way. Many of these research projects will be reported as they are completed, in future issues of the Compendium.

Appendix B

SELECTED PUBLICATIONS ON CREATIVE THINKING (1950-1960)

note: The following publications are selected because they are specifically and entirely devoted to the subject of creative thinking. All such books or reference works (not ardcles) of the decade were listed without regard to relative quality. Anderson, Harold H., ed.. Creativity and Its Cultivation,

Harper

&

Brothers,

New

York, 1959. Armstrong, Frank A., ldea-Trac\ing, Cri¬ terion Books, Inc., New York, i960. Arnold, John, ed.. Summer Session Notes, Creative Engineering Laboratory, Me¬ chanical Engineering Dept., Massachu¬ setts Institute of Technology, 1955, 1956. Arnold, John, ed., Creative Engineering Seminar

(speeches

at

summer

session

program), Stanford University, 1959. Barkan, Manuel, and Mooney, Ross L., eds., The Conference on Creativity (A Report to

the

Rockefeller

Foundation),

Ohio

State University, 1953. Boutourline, Rosenberg, et al.. Individual Creativity and the Corporation, Institute of Contemporary Art, Boston, 1959. Buhl, Harold R., Creative Engineering De¬ sign, The Iowa State University Press, Ames, i960. Clark, Charles H., Brainstorming, Double¬ day & Company, Garden City, New York, 1958. Crawford, Robert P., The Techniques of Creative

Thinking,

Hawthorn

Books,

New York, 1954. Crawford, Robert P., How to Get Ideas, University Associates, Lincoln, Nebraska, 1950. Creative Education

Foundation,

“Available

Materials for Teaching and for Group Brainstorming,” 1614 Rand Building, Buffalo, i960. (A list of materials pub¬ lished by or available from the Creative Education Foundation.) Creative Problem-Solving Institute, University of Buffalo, Proceedings of annual In¬ stitutes, beginning in 1955. Cros, Gamble, Mraz, Whiting, et al., Im¬ agination, Undeveloped Resource (A Critical Study of Techniques and Pro¬ grams for Stimulating Creative Thinking in Business), Creative Training Asso¬ ciates, P.O. Box 913, Grand Central Sta¬ tion, New York, 1955. Foundation for Research on Human Be¬ havior, Creativity and Conformity, Ann Arbor, 1958. (A report of research on creativity and conformity in organiza¬ tions.) Ghiselin, Brewster, ed., The Creative Proc¬ ess, University of California Press, 1952. Gilmore, Forrest E., How to Invent, Gulf Publishing Company, Houston, 1959. Guilford, J. P., Christensen, Paul R., and Wilson, Robert C., “A Bibliography of Thinking, Including Creative Thinking, Reasoning, Evaluation, and Planning,” Department of Psychology, University of Southern California, July, 1953. Industrial Relations News, Company Climate and Creativity, New York, 1958. (A

369

3J0

APPENDIX

B

study of the impact of the business and industrial environment on creative peo¬ ple, particularly engineers and scientists, and how to establish a favorable creative climate.) Industrial Relations News, Creativity (a bib¬ liography), New York, 1958. Industrial Research Institute, Bibliography on Creativity (almost 2,000 references), pre¬ pared by Creativity Sub-Committee of Research Personnel Committee, 1955. Industrial Research Institute, The Nature of Creative Thinking (a monograph). New York, New York University Press, 1952. (A series of articles dealing with crea¬ tivity and creative thinking, as presented at a symposium on creativity sponsored by the Industrial Research Institute.) Institute of Contemporary Art, Boston, Pro¬ ceedings of conferences on the creative process, held 1956-7. (Three detailed re¬ ports of proceedings of creativity con¬ ferences, emphasizing the William J. J. Gordon Operational Approach to Crea¬ tivity.) Essentials in Problem Solving, Arco Publishing Co., New York, 1956.

Kogan, Zuce,

S., Neurotic Distortion of the Creative Process, University of Kansas Press, Lawrence, 1958.

Kubie, Lawrence

G., How to Be a More Crea¬ tive Executive, McGraw-Hill Book Com¬ pany, New York, i960.

Mason, Joseph

Osborn,

Alex

F.,

Applied

Imagination,

Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1957. F., Supplementary Guide (Sug¬

Osborn, Alex

gestions for the Use of Topics and Ex¬ ercises Called for in Revised Edition of Textbook, Applied Imagination), Crea¬

Parnes,

Sidney

J., Instructor’s Manual For

Semester Courses in Creative ProblemSolving (including Adaptations for Ab¬ breviated Courses, Integrated Courses, Institutes, and Conferences), Creative Education Foundation, Buffalo, 1959. Parnes,

J., Student Workbook for Problem-Solving Courses and

Sidney

Creative

Institutes, The University of Buffalo Bookstore, Buffalo, 1959. Patrick, Catherine, What is Creative Think¬ ing?, Philosophical Library, New York, 1955Pearson,

Donald

L.,

Creativeness for En¬

gineers, Donald L. Pearson, P.O. Box 413, State College, Pennsylvania, i960. Scientific American, Vol. CIC, No. 3, Septem¬ ber, 1958. (The entire issue of the maga¬ zine is devoted to articles regarding the creative process, the physiology and psy¬ chology of imagination, and innovation in the sciences.) Scott,

D., ed., The Creative Process,

James

Bureau of Business Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1957. ed., Creativity, Hastings House, New York, 1959.

Smith, Paul,

Stein,

Morris

Creativity

I., and and

Heinze,

the

Shirley

Individual

J.,

(Sum¬

maries of Selected Literature in Psy¬ chology and Psychiatry), The Free Press of Glencoe, Illinois, i960. Jack and Thatcher, Loryn, eds., The Creative Mind and Method, University of Texas Press, Austin, 1959.

Summerfield,

(Highlights from 22 radio programs pro¬ duced by WGBH-FM, Boston. These ra¬

tive Education Foundation, Buffalo, 1957. Alex F., Wa\e Up Your Mind,

dio essays explore the nature of creative¬ ness in the American arts, sciences and professions in the twentieth century.) Taylor, Calvin W., ed., Research Conference

Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1952.

on the Identification of Creative Scientific

A paperback edition of Osborn’s earlier work, Your Creative Power

Talent (three separate detailed reports of the first, second and third biennial con¬ ferences, with complete papers by a

Osborn,

(note:

[Scribner’s, 1948], became available at the end of i960 through Dell Publishing Co., New York.) Parnes, Sidney

J., Creative Retailing (an in¬

structor’s manual for a course in creative retailing), Dept, of Public Instruction, Harrisburg, Pa., 1957.

variety

of

researchers),

University

of

Utah Press, Salt Lake City, 1955, 1957, r959Torrance,

E.

Paul,

ed., Creativity (Proceed¬

ings of the Second Minnesota Conference on Gifted Children), University of Min-

PUBLICATIONS

ON

CREATIVE

nesota, Center for Continuation Study of the General Extension Division, Min¬ neapolis, 1959. Von Fange, Eugene K., Professional Crea¬ tivity, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1959. M., Productive Thinking, Har¬ pers, New York, 1959.

Wertheimer,

THINKING

(1950-1960)

f]I

Charles S., Creative Thinking, Reinhold Publishing Corporation, New York, 1958.

Whiting,

E., Foundations of Creative Problem-Solving, Frank E. Williams, San Jose State College, California, i960. Zirbes, Laura, Spurs to Creative Teaching, G. P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, 1959. Williams, Frank

Appendix C

A DOZEN PROBLEMS SUGGESTED BY EXCERPTS

from The Pursuit of Excellence: Education and the Future of America* (The Rockefeller Report on Education)

final section is included not only for possible classroom discussions but also with the hope that leaders in American education will intensively study the means for providing solutions to the problems stated below. We call attention again to the questions for educators following Selec¬ tion i. The reader will see a close relationship between those questions and these problems. this

It is gratifying to find that the word creativity and its implications stand out so clearly in the various Rockefeller reports and especially in The Pursuit of Excellence. We believe that for the future the paths to excellence in all our under¬ takings will require a greater knowledge of creativity and a far greater use of the principles of creative problem-solving. In the words of Arnold Toynbee, “America must treasure and foster all the creative ability she has in her.” A WORD BY THE PANEL ON EDUCATION

enterprise will become hard shells resistant to growth and change, rather than flexible in¬

“Beyond the temptation to overlook the in¬

stitutions capable of renewing and recreating themselves.” P. ix.

dividual, there is another danger. This is the difficulty of giving free expression to creativity within an institutional atmosphere. We face the threat that our increasingly organized efforts will become increasingly routine; that the

structure of science,

government, and

problem

1:

How can we improve con¬

ditions for “giving free expression to creativity” within the realms of Science, Government, Business, and Education?

* The Pursuit of Excellence: Education

“Paradoxical though it may seem, society as a whole must come to the aid of the individ¬

and the Future of America, © 1958 by Rockefeller Brothers Foundation, Inc. Re¬

ual—finding ways to identify him as a unique person, and to place him alongside his fellow

printed by permission of Doubleday & Com¬

men in ways which will not inhibit or destroy his individuality. By its educational system,

pany, Inc.

373

374 appendix c its public and private institutional practices, and perhaps most importantly, by its attitude toward the creative person, a free society can actively insure its own constant invigoration.” P. ix. problem 2: How can we more quickly and surely identify the creative person and enhance his individuality?

THE NATURE OF THE CHALLENGE “Another factor creating a demand for talent is the recognized value of discovery. Discov¬ ery is no longer considered a matter of mere good fortune. It is consciously sought through large-scale, organized effort. This reliance on systematic research has long been growing. It is in one sense a culmination of our national habit of innovation. One of the factors in the dynamism of our economy has been our will¬ ingness to innovate. The development of systematic and organized research over the past fifty years is the institutionalization of a cardinal American faith in creative change and growth.” P. 9. problem 3:

In what ways can we guar¬

antee increased effort and more effective results in Discovery by Systematic Re¬ search? “In this day of technologies that become anti¬ quated overnight, it is hazardous to predict a favorable future for any narrow occupa¬ tional category. There will be economic ad¬ vantage to the individual in acquiring the kind of fundamental training that will enable him to move back and forth over several occupational categories. Individuals so trained will find a market for their talents under most circumstances. Individuals more narrowly trained will be at the mercy of circum¬ stances.” P. 10. problem 4:

How can individual students

better prepare themselves by fundamental training to serve competently and to be

to meet the specific needs of the future by elevating the quality and quantity of talented individuals of all kinds.” P. 11. problem 5:

In what ways can we elevate

the Quality and the Quantity of talented persons of all \inds? “The trend toward specialization has created among other things an extraordinary demand for gifted generalists—men with enough in¬ tellectual and technical competence to deal with the specialists and enough breadth to play more versatile roles—whether as man¬ agers, teachers, interpreters or critics. Such individuals will be drawn increasingly from the ranks of those whose education and ex¬ perience have included both depth and breadth—who have specialized but have not allowed themselves to become imprisoned in their specialty.” P. n. problem 6: How can we provide for the greatly increased demand for "Gifted Generalists”?

“And it is not only in research fields that there is a premium on men and women with a talent for innovation, for individuals who can move beyond the limits of present prac¬ tice. In a time of breathtaking technological and social changes there is a need for people who understand the process and the nature of the change and who are able to cope with it. One of our great strengths as a people has been our flexibility and adaptability under the successive waves of change that have marked our history. Never have we needed the trait more than today. It is for this reason that we should educate our young people to meet an unknown need rather than to prepare them for needs already identified.” P. 12. In what ways can we train students to understand better the Tech¬ problem 7:

nological and Social Changes and not to fear the Unknown Needs of the Coming Decades?

creative in several different occupations?

“If we are to maintain individual creativity we shall have to learn to preserve it in a

Our most critical need a decade hence may

context of organization. The relevant ques¬

be unknown today. Rather we must prepare ourselves for a constant and growing demand

tions then become: What organizational pat¬ terns and practices may be devised that are

for talents of all varieties, and must attempt

least destructive of individual initiative and

A

DOZEN

PROBLEMS

SUGGESTED

BY

EXCERPTS

375

autonomy? How is it that with all the in¬

problem 10: How can we give currency

tricacy of social mechanism, a good many astonishingly free, flexible, creative and inde¬ pendent individuals exist—some of them in

to the Broadest Conception of Excel¬ lence: that it embraces "Many Kinds of Achievement at Many Levels”?

the very heart of the great bureaucracies?” P. 14.

problem 8: A. "How may we best pre¬

pare our young people to \eep their in¬ dividuality, initiative, creativity in a highly organized, intricately meshed so¬ ciety?” B. "How may we rescue talented individuals from the lowered aspirations, the boredom, and the habits of mediocrity so often induced by life in a large and complex organization?” C. "How do we shatter the informal ceilings placed upon perform¬ ance in an organizational setting in which order, harmony and predictability seem to be given more emphasis than individ¬ ual achievement?” “When we arrive at questions of this import we are no longer simply talking about the cultivation of talent. We are talking about some of the gravest issues in the future of our society. A continuing tension between the needs of the organization and the integrity of the person, between the effectiveness of the group and the creativity of the individual may well be one of the most fateful struggles in our future.” P. 15. problem 9: In what ways can colleges

and universities provide the Best Climate for the Creativity of the Individual with¬ out sacrificing the Benefits of Group Or¬ ganization? “First, we must not make the mistake of adopting a narrow or constricting view of excellence. Our conception of excellence must embrace many kinds of achievement at many levels. There is no single scale or simple set of categories in terms of which to measure excellence. There is excellence in abstract in¬

THE USE AND MISUSE OF HUMAN ABILITIES “An imaginative policy to nurture talent would include not only an effort to identify talent at all age levels, but a continuous de¬ velopmental operation to rescue able people— at whatever age level—from situations which stifle individual potentialities. Such talent de¬ velopment should become a settled policy of every organization. Every corporation, union, government agency, military service and pro¬ fessional group should—in its own best in¬ terest as well as that of its personnel—conduct a never-ending search for talent within its own staff.” P. 1. problem ii: How can groups system¬ atically conduct a Continuous Search for Talent within their own staffs?

“Another problem is the large organization itself. The traits commonly associated with a high level of creativity (e.g. in the best scientists) are not always such as to make for success or even happiness in a large organiza¬ tion. Since many large organizations today cannot function without men of these gifts, a good deal of effort has been expended to resolve this dilemma. Some industrial con¬ cerns, particularly those that depend on a high level of technological innovation, have learned much about how to attract and hold persons of high creativity and intelligence. The military, bound by many rigidities in the treatment of its personnel, has done less. And labor unions still have far to go if they are to develop a forward-looking policy for the nurture of talent within their ranks.” P- 43-

tellectual activity, in art, in music, in man¬ agerial activities, in craftsmanship, in human

problem 12: In what ways can we pro¬

relations, in technical work.” P. 16.

High Creativity and Intelligence?

vide the Best Atmosphere for Persons of

Appendix D

INDEX

[note: The numbers in bold face type indicate the selections and their authors printed in full in the text.]

A

in nervous system, 125-126 (See also tension) Applied Imagination by Alex F. Osborn, 19, 186,

Abel, Niels Henrik, 62 AC Spark Plug Division of General Motors, 26, 127, 255, 305, 361 Conference Leaders Manual, 309/2

193-215, 254, 260, 308, 309, 343, 357, 363 psychological backgrounds of, 188, 193-215 approach method in problem-solving, 277-281 Aristotle, 98

acceptance, a condition for creativity, 70, 107-108

Arnold, John E., 6, 7, 127-138, 251-268

actualization:

art:

in man and nature, 65-66, 71

in children, 10-17

in Picasso, 88 self-actualization, 79, 101, 107, 111

criteria for creativity in, 12

Adamson, Robert E., 200-201, 209-210 Air Force, 167, 174, 176-178, 182

creativeness associated with, 14 cultivating creative habits, 166, 351 in Russia, 10-11

Air University, 27

structures of, 79

Lackland Air Force Base, 188, 346-347, 348-

use of, 83 (See also creativity, general vs. specific; and

349, 366-367 ROTC, 24, 27

transfer-effects)

Allen, Horace E., 27

Art of Thought, The, by Graham Wallas, 218

Allen, Myron S., 172, 322

Asch, Solomon, 230 ff.

Alley, R. P., 337

associations:

ambiguity: experiments with, 361-362

by check-lists, 253 ff. by contrast, 137

sensing, 180

definition of, 135

tolerance for, 68, 87

laws of, 136-137

American Council on Education, 4 American Institute for Research, 367

social, 57 (See also free association)

American Men of Science, 94

“assumptions, tacit,” 222-223

American Psychological Association, 81, 151, 188,

Atlee, Clement, 158 attention, broadly diffused (See diversity of inter¬

312

analysis, definition of, 13 Angley, Anthony, 316 anti-in tellectualism, 164-165 anxiety: freedom from, 313

est) attribute listing, 255 ff., 316 definition of, 308 autonomy and creativity, 91

377

3j8 appendix d autonomy (continued) of individual, 182 of object, 272, 274 awareness: importance of, 66, 67 in the nervous system, 125 of problems, 129 social, 12, 131 {See also openness to experience; permeability; sensitivity to problems)

B Bach, Johann Sebastian, 118 Balzac, Honore de, 8772, 119 Barnard, Chester I., 130 Barron, Frank, 181, 227-237, 344, 345, 367 Batten, Barton, Durstine & Osborn, group brain¬ storming at, 23, 141, 260-262 Baudelaire, Charles Pierre, 235 Baumgarten, Alexander, 8772 Bedard, Roger J., 344 Beethoven, Ludwig van, 235 behavior, creative, 152-153 {See creative individ¬ ual, characteristics of) Beittel, Kenneth, 9, 12, 14, 351, 367 Benton, Mildred, 344 Bergson, Henri, 271 Berner, Dean Robert F., 186, 307, 311-312, 315 ffBerry, Paul C., 362-363 bibliography, 344, 369-371 {See also references) Biographical Inventory Approach, identification of creative talent, 182, 318 Biondi, Angelo, 25, 315, 344 Birch, Herbert G., 197-198, 201-202, 212-213 Block, Clifford H., 362-363 blocks, psychological: cultural, 130, 308 {See also society . . .) emotional, 93-103, 130, 308 minimizing, 145-146, 284, 287 perceptual, 130, 308 {See also perception) Bloom, S. S., 178, 345-346 Bogartz, William, 352-353 Bohemianism, 102, 182 {See also “regression . . .”) Borg, Walter R., 366-367 Bossuet, Jacques B., 8772 Boston City Hospital, 367 Brahe, Tycho, 8772

brain, neurophysiology of, 49-50, 122-126 brainstorming: advantages of, 262 applicabilities of, 22-23, 40-41, 263-264, 287, 292 ff. atmosphere of, 262, 265 attitudes and appraisals, 140-148, 260-263, 284-290, 293-294 at BBD&O, 23, 141, 260-262 by children, 37-38, 40-41 and conformity, 287 and “creative evaluation,” 299-301 criticism of, 270 effectiveness of, 167, 263, 287 fatigue in, 262 group activity vs. individual activity, 21-22, 263, 284-285 individual contributions in, 178, 289 and interaction, 122 {See also cross-fertilization) length of time, 262, 263 in marketing, 326 ff. moral basis of, 146-147 panel, size and personnel, 167, 260, 261, 263 and personality structure, 144-148 philosophy of, 326 preliminary procedures of, 260, 262-263 psychological bases for, 94 ff., 140-146 purpose of, 288 releasing individual potential, 147-148, 287 rules of, 167, 260-261 appraisal of, 144-146, 287 minimizing mental blocks, 145-146, 284, 287 sex factor in, 261 “Stop-and-Go” or “Progressive,” 292 ff. and “time compression,” 293 as a tool, 147-148, 288 use in technical and research problems, 292295 uses and misuses of, 286-289 value of, 167, 286-287 {See also deferred judgment) Breger, Louis, 352 Bristol, Lee H., Jr., Introduction, 23, 313, 323 Brittain, W. Lambert, 14 Bronte, Emily, 235 Brooks, Lloyd O., 352 Buckler, J. Bruce, 315 Buffalo, University of, 167, 185 ff., 284, 288, 344, 367, 368 creative problem-solving courses at, 24, 289, 307 ff. {See also Sidney J. Parnes) Buhl, Harold R., 346 Buhl Planetarium of Pittsburgh, 29 “Buzz Groups,” 291-295

INDEX

c

_J79

self-realization and, in and socialization, in studies of, 177, 363-364

California, University of, 344, 352-354, 367, 368 (See also Institute of Personality Assessment and Research)

teacher-preference, 28, 33-34, 165, 349, 364 tests for, 12-14, 28, 31, 32, 34, 177 transfer-effects of training. 31

California Institute of Technology, 29

Twenty Principles for Educators, 33—46

Cambridge Ancient History, 101

verification and, 35-36

Campbell, William W., 118 “Can

Creativity

Be

Increased?”

by

Sidney

J.

Parnes, 185-191

(See also creative individual; creativity; educa¬ tion) Chorness, Maury H., 174, 346-347, 348-349, 366— 367

Carlyle, Thomas, &yn Carmen, Robert, 29

Christensen, P. R., 239-247, 347, 366

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 27 Castle, Derek L. M., 316

Churchill, Winston, 158

Castro, Fidel, 27

Clark, J. B., 358

Center for Advanced Sciences, 367

Study

in

the

Behavioral

change: attitude and, 164-165, 303 compulsive-obsessives and, 96

Ciardi, John, 5 Clark, Jere W., 23, 321 Client-Centered Therapy by Carl Rogers, 63 closure factors, 55 in twins, 59 cognition, definition of, 160

education and, 143, 168

Cohen, Ira S., 185

management and, 303

collaboration in creativity

people and, 182-183, 302-303, 314 (See also conformity; innovation; novelty) Chattanooga, University of, 23-24 check-lists: alphabet system, 258-259 Crawford’s, 255 in decision-making, 298-299

by groups, 316-317 (See also brainstorming) by teams, 122, 292-295, 328-329 Columbia University research, 20 (See also Richard P. Youtz) combination and disorder, 117

Osborn’s, 254, 308

and habit segments, 196-197

Polya’s, 253-254

of ideas, 200

Chicago, University of, 28, 169, 174, 367, 368 (See also Getzels and Jackson) childlikeness, 101 (See also “regression . . .”) children, creativity in:

in Osborn’s check-list, 254 Combs, A., 205-206 communication: in creative process, 69, 89-90 desire for, 69

advice to teachers, 39

in hysterics, paranoiacs, and obsessionals, 89

and brainstorming, 37-38, 40-41

tests for abilities in, 173

classroom atmosphere for, 37-38, 43-44 and conformity, 110-111 and constructive discontent, 42-43 discipline of, 10

“Communication: Its Blocking and Its Facilita¬ tion” by Carl Rogers, 63 Compendium of Research on Creative Imagina¬ tion, 29, 149, 167n, 191, 343-368

encouraging, 33, 61, in, 166

competition, as motivator, 40, 262, 330

fostering by parents, 15-16

compulsive-obsessive individual:

fostering by teachers, 14-15, 33-46, 165-166 and grading system, 36, 42, 109

descriptions of, 95-99 in sciences, 98

identification of, 175-176

computers (See thinking machines)

importance of developing, 10, 32-33

“A Conceptual Model for Integrating Four Ap¬

inhibiting, n-12, 32, 3097J

proaches

manipulation and, 35

Talent” by Ross Mooney, 73-84

peer sanctions, 34, 38-39 permissiveness, 37 personality characteristics, 34, 39, 42 (See also creative individual, characteristics of)

to

the

Identification

conformity: and brainstorming, 287 in children, no-111 counteracting, 287

questioning and, 131-13 2

dangers of, 91

rewarding, 42

opposite of originality, 13

of

Creative

jSo

APPENDIX

D

conformity (continued)

definition of, 350, 358

as a social control, 11 o-i 11

description of, 99, 101-102, 319, 356-357

tendency toward, 64, no, 130, 144

and group tension, 178

tests for, 230-235

in industry, 94

(See also autonomy)

order-disorder and, 82, 86-87, 228 ff.

Connor, Richard A., Jr., 316 constructive discontent, 1

(See also constructive discontent) responsibilities of, 320

creating in children, 42-43

society and (See society . . .)

in the creative individual, 86-87

use of “accidents,” 12

a GE criterion, 335 (See also order-disorder and sensitivity to prob¬ lems) convergent thinking (See thinking) Convocation of Leaders program, 312, 317-320 Copernicus, Nicolaus, 65 Cornell University research, 367 Cottringer, Ruth, 317 courage, 119-120 (See also perseverance) “The Course in Creative Marketing Strategy at Harvard Business School” by Harry L. Han¬

(See also children, creativity in) Creative Leadership Council, 323 “The Creative Person," 227 creative potential: realization of, 138, 304 released by brainstorming, 147-148, 287 universality of, 65, 138, 199-200, 319, 320 “The Creative Problem-Solving Course and In¬ stitute at the University of Buffalo” by Sid¬ ney J. Parnes, 307-323 creative problem-solving courses, 23 ff. in adult education, 24

sen, 325-331 Cowan, Glenn, 26, 316

and brainstorming, 289

Cowen, Emory L., 209, 211-212

case studies, 305—339

Crandell, Dean D., 322

description

Crawford, Robert, 254-255 creative ability: described, 157 ff. (See also creative individual) exercising, 167-168 a factor-analytic study, 156 ff., 366 furthered by the approach method, 279

age factor in, 190

of,

186-187,

292-295,

308-311,

335-339 evaluation of, 20, 24-25, 186-191, 331, 338339. 355 persistence of effects (experiment), 360 purpose of, 187, 308, 326-327, 334 sex factor in, 190

heredity vs. environment, 164

Student Workbook, for, 24, 307, 309-311, 315 teaching tools of, 24

need for tests, 170-184

use of principles, 25-28

tests for, 154, 350-351 universality of, 33, 42 (See also creative potential; creative talent; crea¬ tivity) Creative Action—the Evaluation, Development, and Use of Ideas” by Leo B. Moore, 297—304 Creative and Mental Growth by Viktor Lowenfeld, 9 Creative Education Foundation, 19, 26, 29, 40, M4> !47> 185, 186, 188, 191, 291, 3iiff., 343. 344. 359 address, 186, 314 objectives, 23, 312, 323 creative evaluation, 299—301, 313 advantages of, 300-301

(See also problem-solving, creative) Creative Problem-Solving Institute: objectives, 311 Report of Proceedings of Seventh Annual, 311323

creative process: advice to teachers regarding, 39-42 concomitants of, 64-65, 68-69 and criticism, 89 definition of, 64-65, 128, 319, 327 description of, 86-91 effectiveness of brainstorming in, 264 example from Synectics group, 274-275 ideas in, 128 and interaction, 121

developments with, 301

lack of literature, 271

and management, 301-304

in Picasso, 88

creative individual: characteristics of, 12-13, 37. 39. 42, 54-59, 67-69, 79, 81, 86-91, 94, 128-130, 179182, 224, 228-237, 313. 348, 351 Einstein on, 131 measurement of, 157-163

and productivity, 65, 128, 259 relation to biological functions, 80-81 steps in, 40, 86, 120, 121, 130-131, 194-195, 199, 218 techniques

in

(See

brainstorming;

deferred

judgment; problem-solving, creative)

INDEX Creative Research, Long Beach, California, 367

and grading system, 109

creative (inventive) talent:

hypotheses to be tested, 71-72

characteristics (See creative individual) heredity vs. environment, 59-61, 164, 188, 190, 290

importance of, 32-33, 64, 154-155, 174-175 inhibiting, 164, 183 inner conditions of, 67-68

identification of, 53-62, 74-83, 178-184

intellectual aspects of, 179-181

not measured well by IQ tests, 174-175

and IQ scores and tests (See IQ)

(See also IQ)

381

research findings, 176-177

as an intra- and inter-personal process, 86-92 in management, 301-304

scientific knowledge of, 176

measurement and development, 151-168

scientific studies of, 52-62

in the military profession, 27-28

(See also creative ability; creative potential; crea¬ tivity)

motivation for, 65-67, 128, 181, 212-213

creative thinking: courses and programs in, 167 (See also crea¬ tive problem-solving courses)

and the nature-nurture problem, 164, 190 (See also heredity . . . and environment) need for, in education, 4-17, 23, 64 neglect of study of, 153-154, 188

and critical thinking, 4, 23, 45, 122, 326, 327

obstacles to, 106-113

and esthetic solutions, 220-221

peer sanctions and, 34, 38-39, 178-179

factors of, 218, 220, 221, 347, 366

and preconscious induction, 55-56

importance of developing, 32-33

predictability, 175

and judicial thinking (See thinking)

in public affairs, 26-27

lack of research in, 153

recognition-identification, 33-34, 74-83

processes and problems in, 220-223

relation to health, 61-62, 95-103, 235-236

value of, 38

research in, 29, 187-188

(See also creative process; creativity; imagina¬ tion; originality; and problem-solving, cre¬ ative) Creative Thinking Institute (Chicago), 277 Creative Training Associates, address of, 262/j creativeness:

(See also research) rewarding, 61, 91, 106-107, 109-110, 165, 175, 219 and scholarly achievement, 53, 149, 318, 335, 346 (See also IQ) in the sciences, 33, 64, 365-366

demonstrated, 118, 121

secret of, 313

primary and secondary, 94-103

and sociability, 349

released by psychotherapy, 95

social need for (See society . . .)

sources of, 94

and stratification, 109-m

universality of, 95

teachability, 20, 188

(See also creative ability; creative individual)

tests for, 53, 188 ff., 347-348 (See also chil¬

creativity: accidental factor in, 12, 62, 153

dren . . . and originality) need for, 180

age factor in, 61, 200

value judgments of, 65-72, no

and artistic structures, 79

ways by which developed, 33-46

in the arts, 9-17, 166

(See also creative individual; creative process; creative talent, etc.)

attitudes, need for change in, 94, 107, 164-165 blocks to, 93-103, 130, 308 in children (See children . . .) in classrooms, 37-38, 43-44 climates and conditions for, 6, 43-44, 63, 6971, 91, 106-111, 138, 219-220 constructive versus destructive, 66-72 criteria for, 12-13, no criterion studies, 177-178 definition of, 5, 32, 91, 106, 152 development of, 164-168, 185-191 in education (See education) educational factor in, 163-164, 190 effects of training, 190, 357, 361 in engineering (See engineering) general vs. specific, 60-61, 358

Creativity and Intelligence by J. W. Getzels and P. W. Jackson, 344 "Creativity as an Intra- and Inter-personal Proc¬ ess” by Morris I. Stein, 85-92 "Creativity:

Education’s

Stepchild”

by

Viktor

Lowenfeld, 9-17 “Creativity

in

Research

and

Invention

in

the

Physical Sciences,” a bibliography compiled by Mildred Benton, 344 "Creativity: Its Measurement and Development” by J. P. Guilford, 151-168 criticism, constructive, 45, 89 (See also thinking, critical vs. creative) cross-fertilization of ideas: analysis of, 23

J§2

APPENDIX

D DeVeau, Larry, 348-349

cross-fertilization of ideas (continued)

“Developing a Creativeness in People” by John

in children, 37-38

W. Lincoln, 269-275

between individuals, 261, 267-268 from one field to another, 45, 313

“Developing Creative Thinking Through School Experiences” by E. Paul Torrance, 31—47

(See also brainstorming, rules of) Crutchfield, Richard, 221, 228

“Developments in Creative Education” by Alex F.

Culp, Colonel W. W., 28, 321

Osborn, 19—29

Cumming, James, 316

Dewey, John, 106

curiosity:

Differential Reaction Schedule, 217, 225, 351

in action, 180

direction, sense of, 88, 224

early manifestation, 33

discontent, sources of, in industry, 112 (See also

a GE criterion, 335

constructive discontent)

and initiative, 42

disorder:

and innovation, 131

and combination, 117

and originality, 224

creative responses to, 228-237

the secret of creativity, 313

definition of, 228

(See questioning) “Current

openness to, 81

Research

on

the

Nature

of

Creative

Talent” by E. Paul Torrance, 344

Poincare on, 117 sensitivity to, 42-43 (See also constructive discontent and order-dis¬ order) divergent thinking (See thinking)

D

diversity of interest, 45, 138, 180 "Do You Really Understand Brainstorming?” by

D’Annunzio, Gabriele, 87n

Sidney J. Parnes, 283-290

Darroch, Allan M., 317—318

dominance:

Darwin, Charles, 116

color and form, tests for, 56

Da Vinci, Leonardo, 162

improvement of, 189

Dawe, Frank E., 316

“Don’t Be Blind” admonition, 202—205, 209

Dayton Rubber Company, 367

Dougan, Catherine P., 347

decision-making, art of, 6-7

Dow Chemical Company, 367

and the “Buzz” technique, 294

“A Dozen Problems Suggested by Excerpts from

in “prediction,” 137

The Pursuit of Excellence,"

techniques, described, 298-299

Drevdahl, John E., 347—348

(See also evaluation)

Duncker, Karl, 200, 201, 219, 221

Decker, Major Bert J., 316, 321 dedication, 119, 120 (See also perseverance)

E

deferred judgment, principle of: and Bohemianism, 102 definition, 187, 190, 284, 308 effectiveness

of,

21-22,

144,

Eckstein, George R., 320, 322 187,

205,

284, 286, 287, 312

261,

Edison, Thomas A., 11, 163, 164 education:

in groups (See brainstorming)

in ancient Greece, 25

an individual method, 21, 129, 190, 284 and insecurity, 144

atmosphere in, 4, 5, 10-n, 36, 149-150, 170,

and interaction, 286

and convergent-divergent thinking, 166

and mental blocks, 284, 287 in Osborn’s “Green Light” stage, 195

and the Creative Education Foundation, 23, 312 for innovation, 128-138

and personality traits, 144

instruction for creativity, 165-168

and the problem of choosing, 298

need for a creative trend in, 3-7, 10-17, 29.

Schiller on, 87-88, 289-290 a way of thinking, 289-290 democracy, a basic concept, 146, 165

182-184

64- M3. I72-I73. 182-184, 191 responsibilities of, 1,5, 143 scholarships, 14-15

Denz, Fred, 323

ten problems for investigation, 7-8

Descartes, Rene, 87/2

ten questions for, 8

destiny, sense of (See direction, sense of)

twenty principles to guide teachers, 33-46

INDEX (See also creative problem-solving courses; chil¬ dren . . . ; educators; teachers)

jSj

experiences: classification of, 106

“Education for Innovation” by John E. Arnold, 127-138

esthetic, 106 openness to (See openness to experience)

Education of the Gifted by R. C. Wilson, 33

ordering of, 120

Educational Testing Service, 367

self-consummatory, 106-113

educators:

extensionality (See openness to experience)

and the evocation of creativity, 4-17, 109, 165166 and social reform, 108-109

F

(See also children . . . ; education; teachers) Edwards, General M. O., 28 Einstein, Albert, 11, 65, 90, 180

fantasy, 38, 43, 65, 89, 96-97, 100, 101, 130,

on his sense of direction, 88

131, 179 (See also Bohemianism and “regres¬

on his thought processes, 88, 89—90

sion . . .”)

on imagination, 21

Faraday, Michael, 119

on important attributes, 130-131

Farnol, Jeffrey, 87n

on problem-definition, 20

fatigue in brainstorming, 262

Einstellung (See “set”)

feedback, psychological, 90-91

elaboration:

Feiertag, Karl M., 316, 322

definition of, 162

femininity, fear of, 97

described, 86

Ferguson, Edward, 316

test for, 159, 228, 229 (illustration)

Ferguson, G. A., 164

emotion:

Ferguson, Whitworth, 314

block to creativity, 130, 308

Fermi, Enrico, 130

influence on reasoning (experiment), 213-214

Firo: A Three Dimensional Theory of Interper¬

inhibits learning (experiment), 208-209 “Emotional

Blocks

to

Creativity”

by

sonal Behavior by William C. Schutz, 325, A.

H.

329 Fisichelli, V. R., 348

Maslow, 93-103 encouragement, aid to creativity, 5-6, 166 (See

fixedness, functional, 163

also creativity: climates for, grading system,

definition of, 196, 200

rewarding;

factors decreasing (experiment), 209—210

and

children . . . :

enourag-

factors increasing (experiments), 205-208

ing) engineering, creative, 333 ff.

and nervous system, 124

characteristics of creative engineers, 39, 346 criteria for selecting GE course members, 335336 environment, influence on creativity, 61, 164, 188,

and problem-solving (experiment), 200-201 (See also habits; rigidity; “set”) flexibility: adaptive, tests for, 158, 162 characteristics of, 12, 129

190, 290 Eriksen, C. W., 206-207

and high motivation (experiment), 212-213

ETC: A Review of General Semantics, 63, 105

in originality, 224

evaluation:

spontaneous,

after brainstorming, 261, 288, 309

(See also

creative evaluation) definition of, 20, 160, 163 and development of new ideas, 129 enemy of brainstorming, 260-261, 263 by intermediaries, 90

definition of, 162 tests for, 158 tests for, 12-13 fluency, associational, expressional, ideational, and word: characteristics of, 12, 129

internal locus of, 68

definitions of, 157, 158, 162

and management, 299-301

individual differences in, 157-158

versus reaction, 70

tests for, 12, 157-158, 162

by self, 163

follow-up, art of, 7, 44, 317 (See also courage and perseverance)

as a threat, 70 (See also creative evaluation and deferred judg¬

Fox, Austin McC., 316

in “Red Light” stage, 195

ment) exaggeration, 279

forced relationship techniques, 251, 308, 316 Franck, Kate, 229 Frank, Lawrence, 107

APPENDIX

D

Franklin Institute (Philadelphia), 183

Gordon, Thomas, 142

free association, 102, 122

Gordon, William J. J., 190, 265 ff., 269, 271, 272,

between conscious and unconscious, 52, 87, 99, 181, 236, 266

292 method

experiments with, 352-354

of problem-solving

(Synectics), 265-

268, 269-275, 292 ff.

(See also cross-fertilization; deferred judgment; “free-wheeling”)

Gough, Harrison G., 25, 217-226, 228, 351 Graham, Jennie, 316

"free-wheeling,” 40, 167, 261

“The Greatest Invention of All,” 183

in Green Light stage, 195

Green, Leah Ann, 349

and the timid individual, 144-145

Green Light stage in creative process, 195

Freud, Sigmund, 87-88, 90, 100

exercise, 295

on communication, 89

value of, 196-197

Frost, Robert, 87n

Greenewalt, Crawford, 130

Functions of the Executive, The, by Chester I. Barnard, 130

Gretry, Andre E. M., 87n

Furnas, Clifford C., 312

Guilford, J. P., 6, 9, 12, 24, 27, 28, 29, 129,

Guiding Creative Talent by E. Paul Torrance, 31 151-168, 172, 179, 187-188, 190, 223, 232, 239-247, 252, 253, 344, 347, 351, 366

G H

Galileo, 65, 120 Galton, Francis, 54 Gates, Dean James E., 26, 141, 313, 321 General

Education—Explorations

in

habits: Evaluation

by Paul C. Dressel and Lewis B. Mayhew, 4 General Electric, 367 creative courses at, described, 333-339 criteria for course members, 335—336

influence on creativity, 111, 195-196 negative effect of, on productive thinking (ex¬ periment), 201-202 relation to problem-solving (experiment), 197— 198

“General Electric’s Creative Courses” by George I. Samstad, 333-339

(See also fixedness, functional; rigidity; “set”) Hansen, Harry L., 23, 325-331

General Motors (See AC Spark Plug Division) Gerard, Ralph W., 49, 115-126

Harms, Ernst, 350

Harding, Harold F., 3-8

Gerry, Robert, 348-349, 366-367

Harris, Douglas Hershel, Jr., 350

Getzels, J. W., 28, 33-34, 165, 174, 179, 181,

Harris, Richard H., 350-351

344. 349, 364. 368 Ghiselin, Brewster, 177, 180

Harrower, Molly, 222

giftedness:

Harvard University, 142, 321, 367

expanding a concept, 54, 164, 169 ff., 349, 364 identification of, 1, 28

Harrison, Dean George R., 49-50

Business School, 262-263, 325-331 purpose of, 328

nurture of, 5-6, 28-29

Heine, Heinrich, 235

scholastic achievement vs. creative talent, 52-

Helmholtz, Hermann L. von, 194-195, 197 Helson, Ravenna, 228

53, 149, 165 teacher-preference, 28, 33-34, 165, 349, 364 (See also IQ, relation to creativity) Gilchrist, Alexander, 237

Henry, O., 101 Heraclitus, 133 heredity and creative talent, 59-60, 164, 188, 190, 290

Gillette, King Camp, invention of safety razor, 258-259

Hersch, Charles^ 351

Giotto di Bondone, 118

Hertz, Heinrich, 118

Glueck study (Yale), 21 goals, analysis of, 221 Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von, 116 The Gold Mine between Your Ears” by Alex F. Osborn, 26 The Golden Key to Problem-Solving,” slides, 313 Goldner, Bernard B., 26 Goodwin, Herbert F., 305

Hibbs, Stephen, 316 Highet, Gilbert, 1, 5-6 Hill, Archibald V., 122 Hix, C. F., Jr., 249, 333, 337 hobbies: a GE criterion, 336 a requisite for creative development, 138 Holland, John L., 149, 367

INDEX Holmes, Mrs. Volney (Rivera), 24, 317

lack of research on, 153, 188

homeostasis, disturbance of (See order-disorder) Hooke, Robert, 235

limits of, 138

Houston, University of, 367

and neurophysiology, 116-126 problems in, 118

“How

the Brain Creates Ideas” by Ralph

need for, 156 W.

Gerard, 115-126

and reasoning, 117-118

“How the Brain Works” by George R. Harrison, 49-50

scientific study of, 228 ff.

How To Solve It by G. Polya, 253

and truth, 27

in schizophrenics, 32

Hoyle, Fred, 17

(See also creativity; innovation; originality)

Huffman, Weddie, 316

“Imagination—Undeveloped Resource” by Harri¬

Hull, Clark L., 196

son G. Gough, 217-226

humor, sense of, 138, 349

incubation:

Hunt, Lt. Col. William H., 316

in creative process, 86, 314

Hutchinson, E. D., 153

described, 194-195, 199

hypotheses, formation and testing of, 88-89

relation of Green Light stage to, 196-197

(See also verification)

individual worth, 70, 106 ff., 113 brainstorming and, 146-147, 287 a factor in originality, 224 inductive ability in problem-solving, 54-56

I

Inferno by Dante, 237 initiative, 42

ideas:

a GE criterion, 336

arrival-survival of, 119-120

improvement of, 25

in creative process, 128

innovation:

criteria of quality of, 167, 186, 187, 190

education for, 128-138

definition of “new,” 240—241, 292

essential elements of, 135-138

evaluation of, 129

in marketing, 326

methods of furthering, 277-281

and the nervous system, 124-125

production of, 115-126

resistance to, 138

social value of, 154-155

(See also change; novelty; and originality)

toying with, 35, 59, 68, 71, 102, 179, 183

innovators, characteristics of, 131, 138, 260

(See also ideation)

insecurity, 144

“Ideas-for-Peace Panels,” 27

and brainstorming, 144-145

ideation:

and status, 107-113

and cross-fertilization (See cross-fertilization) importance

of

unconscious

(See also blocks and personality traits) insight, 52, 116, 154, 182, 258-259

in groups (See brainstorming) activity,

43,

117

(See also openness to the unconscious) by individuals, 22-23 (See also deferred judgment principle) rate of (See fluency)

puzzles, 158, 221-222 inspiration, 7, 119, 182 described, 86 inducing, 87n Institute of Personality Assessment and Research, University of California, 217, 221, 223, 227,

techniques for, 21-23, 4°> 252-268, 277-281,

228, 344, 368

316 triple attack, 23 Illinois, University of, 368

Institute of Visual Research, 367 Instructor Development Program, 312, 322-323

illumination, described, 86, 117, 195, 199

Instructor’s Manual by Sidney J. Parnes, 24

imagination:

intellect:

applied, courses in, 186-187

classification of factors, 160-161

in children, 30972

model of, 161 (illustration)

definition of, 20, 116, 218

structure of, 161-162

developing and stretching, 43, 186 ff. essential elements of, 220

(See also mental functions)

IQ:

a GE criterion, 336

predictive value of, 149, 171-172

and interaction, 121

relation to creativity, 28-29, 33-34, 153, 156,

and judgment, 309n

163-164, 165, 169 ff., 349, 356, 363-364,

versus knowledge, 21

365

jS6

APPENDIX

D

IQ (continued)

Kingman, Louise, 316

teacher-preference and, 28, 33-34,

165, 349,

Kogan, Zuce, 277-281 Kris, E., 86

364

terminology, 171

Kubie, Lawrence S., 286

tests, 28, 154, 163 (See also gif ted ness) interaction:

L

between individuals, 121-122 (See also cross¬ fertilization) between individual and environment (See open¬ ness to experience)

Lamennais, Robert de, 8777 Land, Edwin H., 258, 259

between individual and his unconscious

(See

openness to unconscious) (See also permeability)

Langmuir, Irving, 279 Lawrence, David, 26 Lazarus, R. S., 206-207

international problems, creative thinking in, 2627, 64 intuition, 44, 82

leadership: in children, 39 group-centered, 142

inventiveness, 5

improvement of, 25

and heredity, 59

qualities for, 155

and inductive ability, 55

Lefford, A., 213-214

scientific study of, 52-62

Leibniz, Gottfried W. von, 87/7

(See creativeness; creativity; novation; originality)

imagination;

in¬

Invitations to Thinking and Doing by R. E. Myers and E. Paul Torrance, 31 involvement, 62, 121, 178-179, 180 denial of, 113

Levey, H. B., 8777 Licht, Leonard, 353-354 Life of William Bla\e by Alexander Gilchrist, 237 Lincoln, John W., 269-275 Lindemann, Edna, 316 Lipgar, Robert, 6977

Iowa, University of, 188

Little, Arthur D., Company, 265 fL, 269 ff.

Iowa State College, 367

Loewi, Otto, 116 Lonely Crowd, The, by David Riesman, 286 Loo\ magazine, 165

J Jackson, P. W., 28, 165, 174, 179, 344, 349, 364, 368 James, William, 196, 271

Lorge, Irving, 284 Louisiana State University, 367 Lowenfeld, Viktor, 1, 9-17, 176, 351, 367 Lowes, John L., 116 Luchins, A. S., 202—205, 209

Jex, Frank, 175 Johnson, Ellis A., 6 judgment:

M

deferment of (See deferred judgment) definition of, 20 imagination and, 30977

McKinney, F., 208-209

independence of, and originality, 230-235, 345 premature intrusion of, 286

MacKinnon, Donald W., 228

(See also evaluation and thinking)

MacQueen, Lt. Col. Lawrence P., 316 magnification, 254

juvenile delinquency, Glueck study of, 21

MacLeod, Gordon A., 316

(See also exaggeration) Maier, Norman R. F., 198, 214-215

K

Maizell, Robert'E., 351-352 Maltzman, Irving, 352-354 Man, essential conditions for existence of, 76-83

Kant, Immanuel, 271 Kaplan, A., 89 Kennedy, John F., 318 Kerr, Willard A., 365 Kettering, Charles F., 7, 313 Khrushchev, Nikita, 27

management, creative, 301-304 attitudes and, 303-304 of creative personnel, 74, 94, 101-103 essence of, 302 of industrial workers, 112-113, 3°i. 304 Mandell, Milton M., 354-355

INDEX Marconi, Guglielmo, 11

Mosing, Lionel Wadell, 357

marketing, creative, 325-331

motivation, 65-67, 128, 181

Markey, F. V., 153

by competition, 40, 262, 330

Maslow, A. H., 93-103

in engineers, 336, 346

Mason, Joseph G., 28, 291-295, 315, 321

factors in originality, 224

38 J

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 186

in problem-solving (experiment), 212-213

Creative Engineering Laboratory, 254

Motivation and Personality by A. H. Maslow, 93

masterpieces, dispelling awe of, 34, 41-42

Mozart, Wolfgang A., 8722

Matthews, Jack, 139-148, 287

Mumford, Lewis, 138

Maxwell, James C., 118, 119

Muscoda Public Schools, Muscoda, Wisconsin, 367

Mazda lamp, development of, 279

Musset, Alfred de, 87/2

Meadow, Arnold, 22, 185, 355, 359-360

Myden, Walter D., 357

“The Measurement of Individual Differences in

Myers, R. E., 31

Originality” by R. C. Wilson, J. P. Guilford, and P. R. Christensen, 239-247 Measuring Personality Adjustment in Children by

N

Carl Rogers, 63 “The Mechanism of the Assembly of Behavior Segments in Novel Combinations Suitable for Problem Solution” by C. L. Hull, 196

National Science Foundation, 20, 29,

mediocrity, drive toward, 60, 130, 165 Meer, Bernard, 356, 361-362

169,

219

definition of, 160

“The Need for a More Creative Trend in Ameri¬

functions of, 55

can Education” by H. F. Harding, 3-8

stuffing, 124

nervous system, 67, 116-126

in education, 11

'Neurotic Distortion of the Creative Process by

mental functions, 20 overlap with personality characteristics, 55 ff. (See also intellect)

Lawrence S. Kubie, 286 Newton, Sir Isaac, 118, 119, 235 Next Hundred Years, The, by Brown, Bonner,

mental profile, 54-58 Furthering

81,

321, 344 “necessity is the mother of invention,” 43, 121,

memory:

of

National Merit Scholarship Corporation, 149, 367 national problems, list of, 5

mechanization (See rigidity)

“Methods

National Academy of Sciences in Poland, 175

New

Ideas”

by

Zuce

Kogan, 277-281 Meyer, Priscilla, 356 Michigan, University of, 145, 368 Michigan State University, 367 Millard Fillmore College, 186 Milton, John, 8722, 90 Minich, Carl E., 24 minification, 254 Minnesota, University of, 368 Bureau of Educational Research, 31, 32, 33, 169, 174, 178, 358, 364 (See also E. Paul Torrance)

and Weir, 287 Nicholson, Patrick James, 357 Nightingale, Florence, 120 Northrop, F. S. C., 42-43 note-taking, 38, 138 importance of, 308 Notre Dame, University of, 367 Nottelmann, D. A., 346-347 novelty, 86, 124-125 and deferred judgment, 284 inducing, 196-197 source of, 94, 236 and value judgments, 66 (See also innovation and originality)

Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company, 292 ff.

o

Mississippi Southern College, 367 Mitchell, Josephine E., 317 modification, 254 Montmore, Michael, 323

observation:

Mooney, Ross L., 73-84, 96, 319-320, 356-357

and attention, 120

Moore, Leo B., 297-304, 314

definition of, 120

Moot, Welles V., 314

a GE criterion, 335

Morgan, Bruce, 21

increasing via check-lists, 252 ff.

Morphological Analysis, 255-258, 363

in nervous system, 124

Moshin, S. M., 207-208

(See also perception)

jSS

APPENDIX

‘‘Obstacles to 105-113

D

Creativity”

by

Melvin

Tumin,

Owens, W. A., 358, 368

Office of Naval Research, 151, 352-354, 362-363

P

Ohio State University research, 12, 367 Bureau of Educational Research, 356 Conference on Creativity, (1952), 64B, 73, 105

Granville,

Ohio

Palm, Harold J., 358 Palmer, Samuel, 237

“On Problem-Solving” by Karl Duncker, 200 openness: to disorder, 8r

Papanek, Victor J., 322 Parnes, Sidney J., 6, 20, 22, 24, 29, 185-191, 283-290, 307-323. 355. 359-36o, 368 Patrick, Catherine, 36, 42, 194, 198, 199-200

to experience, 66-68, 79, 81, 252-253 and awareness, 129

Pearl, The, by John Steinbeck, 128

degrees of, 82-83

Pennsylvania State University research, 11, 12, 14,

developing in children, 34

367 (See also Viktor Lowenfeld)

encouragement of, 91

perception, 78-79, 120, 132-136

in Picasso, 88

blocks to, 130, 308

(See also permeability)

definition of, 319

to the unconscious, 52, 87, 99, 181, 236

illustrations of, Figs. 1-6, 132-135 and 136

lack of (See compulsive-obsessives) (See

also fantasy; sion . . .”)

in problem-solving, 198-199

permeability;

“regres¬

(See also observation) permeability, 68, 78, 81, 875.

“operational creativity” (Synectics), 265, 269 ff. “Opinions Asch,

and 230

Social

Pressure”

by

Solomon

permissiveness, 37, 71, hi, 122, 138 perseverance, 7, 260

Orcutt, Clayton G., 316

a GE criterion, 336

order-disorder:

(See also dedication)

in compulsive-obsessives, 95 ff.

personality traits:

in creative individual, 82, 86-87, 228 ff.

appraisal of, 56-58

(See also constructive discontent and disorder)

of creative children, 34, 39, 42

Oregon, Portland School System, studies in, 166, 177 organization, coherence of:

of

creative

individuals,

129—130,

152—153,

174 ff., 182, 346, 351, 357 (See also cre¬ ative individual, characteristics of)

examples, 13

and deferred judgment principle, 144 definition, 152

a GE criterion, 335 Organization Man, The, by William H. Whyte, Jr., 130, 270, 286 originality: assessing determinants of, 223-225 characteristics of,

(See also open¬

ness to experience)

13,

social pathologies, 113

129, 217, 224, 228 ff.,

345. 361 definition of, 13, 162, 240-241, 243, 244, 354 and independent judgment, 229-235, 345 inhibiting, 313

uniqueness of, 165 (See also blocks and creative individual) Phillips, Donald, 291 “Phillips 66” technique, 291 Physical Laws and Effects by C. F. Hix, Jr. and R. P. Alley, 337

measuring, methods of, 240-247, 354-355 motivational factors in, 224

Picasso, Pablo, 88, 120

and order-disorder, 228—230

Pleuthner, Willard A., 141

persistence of training in, 353—354

Poincare, Flenri, 117, 194,

and personality characteristics, 224, 228 ff., 345 tests for, 13, 158-159, 223-225, 227 ff., 240247

197

Polaroid Camera, 258-259 Polya, G., 253 ' Potomac University, 367

(See also imagination; innovation; novelty)

prediction, 130, 138

Osborn, Alex F., 4, 5, 6, 7, 19-29, 40, 141 ff., 186, 190 f., 193 ff., 249, 252, 254, 260 ff., 284, 288, 292, 305, 308, 310-311, 312-313, 323, 326, 343 “other-directedness,” 107-m, 130 conformity and society . . .)

improvement of, 25, 32, 186, 189 and intellective functions, 55 ff. and originality, 224, 228 ff., 345

(See

also

steps in, 137 preparation: in creative process, 40, 86 definition of, 20, 194, 199 problem-solving, creative: and creative evaluation, 297—301

INDEX effect of group approaches to, 285 (illustration) esthetic quality of solutions, 220-221 (experiments)

3S9

Productive Thinking by M. Wertheimer, 220 productivity: correlates of, 365

appearance of solution in consciousness, 198199

in creative process, 65, 128, 259 and deferred judgment principle, 187

cats and, 218

and emotion, 130

effect of directions and hints, 214-215

and environment, 153-154

effect of emotional factors on, 208-209

in group enterprises, 143 ff.

effect of emotional subject matter, 213-214 effect of extended efforts in, 359

and high scholastic performance, 53 in industry, 112

effect of failure stress on, 206-207

measures of, 177-178

effect of frustration on behavior in, 207208

relation to IQ scores, 171-172 and rigidity, 94-95

effect of personal threat on, 205-206

and self-oriented needs, 145

evaluation of training in, 355, 360

technical and scientific (experiments), 365—366

and functional fixedness, 200-201

transfer-effect of, 2

influence

of brainstorming instructions

on,

355, 359 mechanization in, 202—205

Professional Creativity by Eugene Von Fange, 333, 336 proportion, sense of, 336

and motivation, 212-213

Proust, Marcel, 8772

relationship of previous experience to, 197-

Psychological Abstracts, analysis of index, 153

198, 201-202

Psychological Business Research, Cleveland, Ohio,

stress reduction and rigidity in, 211-2x2 {See also Appendix A)

367

“Psychological Foundations of Applied Imagina¬

and incubation, 314

tion” by Richard P. Youtz, 193-215

and individual involvement, 62, 121

psychological freedom, 71, 263, 264

imaginative solutions in, 118

psychological safety, 70-71, 108, no, 263, 264,

intelligent behavior in, 196

287

and management, 301-304

brainstorming and, 348

and mental profiles, 54-58

Psychological Service of Pittsburgh, 367

methods of, 6

psychology, experiments in:

approach, 277-281

direction and reasoning, 214-215

conventional, 278

emotional factors and efficiency, 208-209

general principles, 278

emotional subject matter, influence on reason¬

Gordon’s (or Synectics), 265-268, 269-275, 292 ff.

ing, 213-2x4 experience, negative effect of, 201-202

Harvard Business School’s, 325-331

experience and problem-solving, 197-198

individual vs. group activity {See brainstorm¬

failure stress and performance, 206—207

ing and deferred judgment)

frustration and problem-solving, 207-208

Osborn’s, 20 ff., 195

functional fixedness in problem-solving, 200-

procedures, uses of, 25-28

201

process,

functional fixedness, relation to time and to set, 209-210

characteristics of, 52 steps in, 20-23, 194-195 (See a^so creative process) teachability

of,

312-313

{See

also

creative

mechanization in problem-solving, 202-205 motivation and problem-solving, 212-213 perception time and rigidity, 210-211 recombination of ideas, 200

problem-solving courses)

solution, appearance of, 198-199

techniques, 251-268, 316 attribute listing, 255 ff., 308

stress reduction and rigidity, 211-212

brainstorming {See brainstorming)

threat and performance, 205-206

check-lists, 253-254

whole and part relationship in creative thought, 199

Morphological Analysis, 255-258

{See also Appendix A)

“trial and error” in, 215, 218 {See

also

brainstorming;

creative

problem¬

solving courses; deferred judgment) problems, classification of, 128 Proctor, James O., 316

“The Psychology of Creative Thinking Groups” by Jack Matthews, 139-148 “The Psychology of Imagination” by Frank Bar¬ ron, 227-237

J90

APPENDIX

D

psychotherapy:

in creative thinking programs, 186-191

as a process, 80, 99-100

on creativity in education, 9-17

relation to creativity, 65

on developing creative thinking in children, 31—

as a release for creativeness, 95-101, 108 Psychotherapy and Personality

Change by Carl

Rogers, 63

47 experiments, 193-215, 343-368 objections to, 237, 273

Purdy, D. L., 249

Project on Aptitudes of High-Level Personnel,

Pursuit of Excellence, The, Rockefeller Brothers Report, 373

156-168 questions for,

6, 7-8,

52 ff.,

146,

153, 219,

373-375 in sciences, 170-184

Q

summaries of, 149, 193-215, 343-368 upsurge of, 29 Research Conference on the Identification of Cre¬

“quantity breeds quality,” 21, 261, 288, 312

ative Scientific Talent, 20, 73, 169, 176, 191,

experiments with, 190-191, 359

343 Reports from (1955), 345-346; (1957). 358 (See also Calvin W. Taylor)

relationship to manipulation, 35 tests with children, 40-41 Quarles, Donald, 28 questioning,

120-121,

127,

129-132,

180, 252,

responses, uncommon, 13 tests for, 13-14, 228 ff., 241 ff. reversal, 254

313 inhibiting, 131 and use of check-lists, 253-254

Rice, Harvey, 23

(See also curiosity)

Rickover, H. G., 37 Riesman, David, 286 Rigabee, Lt. J. T., 27 rigidity, 68, 87, 95-96

R

definition of, 200 factors decreasing (experiments), 209-212

Rabinowitz, H. S., 201-202 Racusen, Frances R., 360

factors increasing (experiments) 205-209, 213214

Raskin, David, 353-354

in problem-solving (experiment), 202-205

rationality, healthy vs. sick, 97-103 Read, H., 88

in scientists, 94-95, 196

Ready, Catherine R., 23

(See also fixedness, functional; habits; “set”) Rimbaud, Jean Arthur, 235

rearrangement: ability for, 13

Road to Xanadu, The, by John L. Lowes, 116

in Osborn’s check-list, 254 reasoning:

Rockefeller Brothers Report on Education, 373 Roe, Anne, 94

Rockefeller Foundation, 73, 81, 271

a GE criterion, 335-336

Rogers, Carl R., 63-72, 108, 142, 252

versus imagination, 117-118, 120-121

Rokeach, M., 209, 210-211

problems in, 117-118

Rona, Georges, 28

redefinition, ability for, 13

Rossini, Gioacchino, 87/z

tests for, 162-163

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, 87n Russell, D. H., 33

Red Light stage, 195 exercise, 295 Reed College (Oregon), 166 Reese, Hayne, 185, 355 references, lists of,

46-47,

83-84,

91-92,

s

184,

225-226, 247, 281, 369-371 “regression in the service of ego,” 43, 87, 99, 101-102, 236-237 Reichenbach, H., 86 Reilly, W. J„ 278 Reni, Guido, 87n repression, 95-96, m research: climates for, 219

Salk, Jonas, 7, 141 Sallada, John F., Jr., 316 Samstad, George I., 333-339 Schiff, Ethel, 347 Schiller, Frederick, 87-88, 289-290 Schimek, J. G., 360-361 schizophrenics, 32, 99 tests with, 32, 351

INDEX Schneider, LeRoy, 26, 316, 322

Socrates, 67

Schultz, Whitt N., 315

solutions, unusual, 13

Schumacher, C. F., 358

J9/

tests for, 13-14, 241 ff.

Schutz, William C., 325, 329

“Some

Principles

of

Stratification:

A

Critical

Analysis” by Melvin Tumin, 109

science: and art, transfer-effect, 10-12

Southern California, University of, 27, 151, 240, 367, 368 (See also J. P. Guilford)

as an art, 119 criteria for creativity, 12

Space Agency, 177, 182

defined, 95

space factors, 54

need for creativity in, 64

Spearman, C., 61 Sprecher, Thomas B., 39, 177, 361, 367

Scientific American, 227, 230 “The Scientific Study of Inventive Talent”

by

Staake, Paul C., 321 Standard Oil Company, 367

L. L. Thurstone, 51-62

Status of Knowledge Concerning Education and

scientists: biographical inventory of, 182, 318

Creative Scientific Talent by E. Paul Tor¬

characteristics

rance, 344

of,

172,

178 ff., 352, 365-366

(See also creative individual, characteris¬

status-striving, 107-113 (See also society . . .)

tics of)

Stein, Morris I., 6, 39, 85-92, 344, 356, 361-362, 368

as creators, artists, 119 criterion studies of, 172, 177-178

Steinbeck, John, 128

and dreams, 118

Steinmetz, Cloyd S., 322

and rigidity, 94-95 “Selected Publications

Stevenson, A. R., 334 on

Creative

Thinking

stimulation, group (See cross-fertilization) Stockwell, William A., 315

(1950-1960),” 369-371 selectivity, disciplined, 69, 78, 79

Stoddard, Dean George D., 28

self-realization (See actualization)

Stransky, Adolph, 24

Seitz, A. D., 316

stratification, systems of, 109-111

Seneca, Lucius, on “genius,” 243^

Striker, Fran, 322

sensitivity:

substitution, 254 “Suggestions for Brainstorming Technical and Re¬

to ambiguities, 180 to disorder, 42-43

search Problems” by Joseph G. Mason, 291-

esthetic, definition of, 224

295 suggestion systems, 26, 306

to problems, applications of, 12

effect of creativity training on, 361

characteristics of, 12, 129, 163, 252

Summers, Stanley S., 352

development of, 34, 42-43, 131

Swift, Jonathan, 235 Synectics (or Operational

importance of, 12, 179-180, 252 tests for, 157, 163 (See also awareness; openness to experience;

265-268,

Synectics by William J. J. Gordon, 269 synergy, 128 synthesis, definition of, 13

permeability) separateness, anxiety of, 69 “set,” 124, 202, 203, 205 relation to functional fixedness

Creativity),

269 ff. (See William J. J. Gordon)

Szent-Gyorgyi, Albert, 7 (experiment),

209-210 (See also fixedness, functional; habit; rigidity) Shakespeare, William, 118, 119, 163, 164

T

Shannon, T. E., 361 Taton, R., 36, 37 Taylor, Calvin W., 20, 149, 169-184, 191, 205-

Shelley, Percy B., 877J Simberg, A. L., 26, 361

206, 318, 321. 343, 344, 368 Taylor, Donald W., 22, 209-210, 362-363, 368

Simmonds, Harold F., 315 Simon, Seymore, 352-354 Skinner, B. F., 287 society and the creative individual,

64,

89-91,

106-113, 154-155. 164-165, 174 ff., 182184 (See also blocks, cultural; children . . . ; creativity, climates for; and education) Society for the Study of Evolution, 81

teachers: and classroom atmosphere, 37-38, 43-44 principles to guide, 33-46, 165-168 questions for, 8, 166-167 studies of, 175 (See also children . . . ; education; educators)

J92

APPENDIX

D

Ten Problems for Scholarly Investigation, 7-8

Turman, C. K., 26, 315

Ten Questions for Education, 8 tension:

twins, studies of, 59

in nervous system, 125-126

u

released by problem solution, 118, 236 “A Tentative Description of the Creative Indi¬ vidual” by Calvin Taylor, 169-184 testing possible solutions, 7, 117, 119-120 also verification)

(See

unconscious activity: importance of, in ideation, 43 Poincare on, 117

thinking:

the primary and secondary processes, 97 ff.

convergent,

(See also openness to the unconscious)

definition of, 160, 174, 179

understanding, empathic, ativity, 70-71

in education, 166 creative and judicial, 23, 187

a

condition

for

cre¬

artificial separation of, 20, 195, 295, 308, 309

Union College Studies in Character Research, 38

examples of 295

“The Unpredictable Intellect” by Gilbert Highet,

proportioning

time

between,

I

Uraneck, William O., 321

(See also deferred judgment) critical vs. creative, 4, 23, 45, 122, 326, 327 divergent,

“Useful Creative Techniques” by John E. Arnold, 251-268 Utah, University of, 367, 368

definition of, 160, 161, 174, 179 in education, 166

Research Conferences, 20, 73, 169, 176, 191,

and IQ tests, 163

343 (See also Calvin W. Taylor)

modes of, 138, 327 scientific and creative, resemblance between, 7 (See also creative thinking and judgment) thinking machines, 6, 29, 115, 120, 155, 286 Thoreau, Henry D., 87/2

V

Thorndike, E. L., 218 Value Analysis Programs, 305-306

Thorndike, R. L., 285

Van Gogh, Vincent, 235

Thurstone, L. L., 51-62, 157, 180-181, 290

Van Zelst, Raymond H., 365

Thurstone, Thelma G., 168 Tiernan, Robert J., 315

verbalization, 131 (See communication) verification, 86, 89

tolerance:

described, 195, 199

of ambiguity, 68, 87

developing in children, 35-36

for change, need to develop, 168

and nerve activity, 124-126

of creative personality, 36-37

(See also testing possible solutions)

of disorder, 234-236

Von Fange, Eugene K., 262, 333, 336

of new ideas, 36 Torrance, E. Paul, 1, 28, 3i~47> 174. 177, 179, *91. 344. 363-364, 368

w

“Toward a Theory of Creativity” by Carl Rogers, 63-72

Toynbee, Arnold, 373

Walker, Donald E., 365-366

“Training the Thinker” by Gilbert Highet, 5 trait, definition of, 152 transfer-effects, 2, 10, 15, 31, 45, 60-61, 166, 168, 190, 279, 351

Wallas, Graham, 86, 194-195, 218 Warburg, Otto H., 121-122 112,

Transformations of Alan, The, by Lewis Mumford, 138

Travers, Robert M. W., 17722 “trial and error” and creative imagination, 218 in problem-solving, 215, 218, 222, 278, 279, 280 True, G. Herbert, 364-365, 367 Tumin, Melvin, 105-113

Weisbord, Marvin R., 9 Welch, Livingston, 200, 347, 348 Welsh Figure Preference Test, 230, 231 (illustra¬ tion) Wertheimer, M., 88, 89-90, 219, 220 Wert her by J. W. von Goethe, 116 West, Roger S., 316 whatness” and “whoness,” 107—108, no Whelan, Kenneth J., 366 Whitehead, Alfred North, 120 Whiting, Bruce, 316

INDEX Whiting, Charles S., 251, 319, 322

39 3

Y

Who’s Who in American Colleges and Universi¬ ties, 24 Whyte, William H., Jr., 130, 270, 286 Wiksell, Milton, 316 Wilde, Oscar, 118-119 Wilson, D. P., 242 Wilson, Robert C., 33, 42, i66«, 177, 179, 239247, 347. 366 Wilson, R. Q., 316

Yale University research, 368 Glueck study, 21 Donald Taylor study, 22 Your Child and His Art by Viktor Lowenfeld, 9 Your Creative Power by Alex F. Osborn, 186 Youtz, Richard P., 188, 193-215, 284, 343

Wilson, William, 269

z

Wilson, Woodrow, 5 Wolfe, R. M., 319 Wood, R. W., 119

Zaccaria, Michael A., 366-367

Work Simplification program, 26, 305

Zwicky, Fritz, 255

Acknowledgments

Page 77

University of Utah Research Conference on the Identification of Creative Scientific Talent, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, 1958

134

Copyright 1950 by VIT-A-WAY Livestock Fortifier, Fort Worth, Texas. Reprinted by permission

161

Courtesy of J. P. Guilford, University of Southern California

226—7

Courtesy of Dr. Wallace B. Flail, Institute of Personality Assessment and

insert

Research, Berkeley, California; reproduction through the courtesy of Scien¬ tific American

229 231

Devised by Dr. Kate Franck Reproduced by special permission from Welsh Figure Preference Test by George S. Welsh. Copyright, 1949. Published by Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc., Palo Alto, California

233

Courtesy of Dr. Frank Barron, Institute of Personality Assessment and Re¬ search, Berkeley, California

256

Courtesy of John E. Arnold, Stanford University, Stanford, California

r

T

David L. 8600 University Boulevard (Evansville/ Indiana 47712

g asigs jagiiigii ^Sii-ggilS-SiSiilSgiiilSaiai^i ~. . !. Si^-isT* ~_I s-_' c>!f

•T- -«• V •! A -i~~ t-tU -{Hit; nrxtxpi 5 Mr* n; a a:-ig^^siia«ai««sii8sSS!gg2ii3®ssasa8^8B^588^ mu BfefEiy^iM^ijSSsIgi^iSsiSisgaajiSSsggiSse PH:U^SSP;^S255^H;»HHP^H" i—..

■? ;,■

4t;i:

..inmsi: us:«:::: ;*K m; «r. j« UK-'-'

' ■:■

SHiiSiSfieaSSltS: cm*,

teas® u ! - 3.T

Pjbjij Hj;:{::;~::“: SnSoc;. _

Sl'ii

J:.;;;'n'::P‘; .a:

r,:; ic:

;;ii;

|«cj«aiw3 ^ . . |_ ;;uc=::u.nr.::;t Sn-Suf-""*5 _____ .-

ainiifi mi 1 iiiiiiiiil ilinr linsSSBlSliiillii

ligiaSsS’-K;

'

.■•••

••

i^s^:-2S^«H«IS*H3»§isl§3ls^S2CT«S^l3^«§^«?Hl®^i®«a2H:ESHS©tfi iPIP ^s^S';5^l®]@i!fflSsjSsS|SsSiS!pss:^g^^^^^a%^g|||^3Hpasgpgss^^® ^S.j-r. ■

:::r-T„-

a;:;-.

=,-“-- , i£ J-J;1^*^“g^^^l!^!!:ia^^^;lgggE?5fiii55Sgia58^^S5BISi!aa^

-