Elsevier

Intelligence

Volume 41, Issue 5, September–October 2013, Pages 328-340
Intelligence

Verbal fluency and creativity: General and specific contributions of broad retrieval ability (Gr) factors to divergent thinking

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2013.05.004Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Using the CHC model, verbal fluency's role in creativity was examined.

  • People completed 16 broad retrieval (Gr) tasks and 2 divergent thinking tasks.

  • Gr predicted both the creative quality and the quantity of divergent thinking.

  • Most of the 6 first-level Gr factors predicted creativity; all predicted quantity.

  • The results contribute to the emerging CHC approach to creative cognition.

Abstract

The Cattell–Horn–Carroll (CHC) model of intelligence views creativity as a first-level factor within the second-level factor of broad retrieval ability (Gr), alongside other first-level abilities such as ideational fluency and word fluency. Traditional methods of measuring creativity, however, confound idea quality with idea quantity, which might exaggerate the relationship between creativity scores and verbal fluency factors. Participants (n = 131 adults) completed two divergent thinking tasks (unusual uses for a rope and a box), which were scored using newer methods that effectively separate creativity (scored via subjective ratings) and fluency (scored as number of responses). They then completed 16 verbal fluency tasks that assessed six lower-order Gr factors: word fluency, associational fluency, associative flexibility, ideational fluency, letter fluency, and dissociative ability. Viewed singly, many of the lower-order factors significantly predicted creative quality and fluency. General Gr had substantial effects on creative quality (standardized β = .443) and fluency (β = .339) in a higher-order model as well as in a bifactor model (quality β = .380, fluency β = .327). Moreover, general Gr was the only significant predictor in the bifactor model, suggesting that it, not the specific factors, was most important. All effects were essentially the same after controlling for typing speed and vocabulary knowledge. The findings thus support the CHC view of creativity/originality as a lower-order component of Gr, illuminate the relationships between creativity and first-level Gr factors, extend the study of creativity and intelligence beyond fluid intelligence, and further indicate that creativity is more closely tied to cognitive abilities than creativity research has yet recognized.

Introduction

How do people come up with clever and creative ideas, and why are some people better at it than others? Most research on these questions has used divergent thinking tasks, which prompt people to generate ideas than can be scored, based on a variety of systems, for creativity (Kaufman et al., 2008, Plucker and Renzulli, 1999). In the Cattell–Horn–Carroll (CHC) model of cognitive abilities (McGrew, 2005, McGrew, 2009), idea generation tasks fall under the second-level factor known as broad retrieval ability, abbreviated as Gr (Carroll, 1993). But as many researchers have argued, traditional methods for assessing divergent thinking yield only a fluency score—the simple number of valid responses—or yield quality scores that are confounded with quantity (Hocevar, 1979b, Michael and Wright, 1989, Silvia et al., 2008). Two problems result: (1) divergent thinking tasks might resemble verbal fluency tasks too closely, leading to questions of construct validity, and (2) the weak correlations between creativity and intelligence observed in past work (Kim, 2005) might be due to weak assessment of creativity, not to a genuinely small effect size.

The present research thus addresses two issues. First, when newer assessment methods that effectively dissociate creativity and fluency are used, how does creativity fit within the Gr domain? The dominance of fluency-based scoring systems available at the time of Carroll's (1993) landmark analysis might have inflated the association of divergent thinking and Gr. Second, how does divergent thinking relate to both the Gr factor and to its first-level factors? What first-level factors contribute the most to generating creative ideas? In the present research, people completed two divergent thinking tasks and 16 Gr tasks that mapped on to six lower-order Gr factors: word fluency, associational fluency, associative flexibility, ideational fluency, letter fluency, and dissociative ability. Using structural equation modeling, we estimated the contributions of the lower-order factors and the higher-order Gr factor—modeled using higher-order and bifactor models—to both the quality and quantity of responses to the divergent thinking tasks.

Section snippets

The creativity-and-intelligence debate

Creativity research has had an ambivalent relationship with the construct of intelligence. Guilford, in a program of work that launched modern creativity research, extensively studied how both convergent and divergent modes of thought fit into his Structure of Intellect Model (Guilford, 1967), which contained many novel tasks for measuring creativity. Later creativity researchers, however, contended that creativity and intelligence are essentially unrelated (Getzels & Jackson, 1962). Wallach

Divergent thinking and Gr

The confounding of fluency and creativity is interesting for several reasons. For one, it sheds new light on the modest relationships between divergent thinking and intelligence (Kim, 2005, Wallach and Kogan, 1965). Divergent thinking tests are probably the most widely used tools for measuring creativity, and an extensive literature provides evidence for their validity (Kaufman et al., 2008, Ma, 2009, Plucker, 1999, Silvia et al., 2008). Nevertheless, in his review of the originality/creativity

The present research

The present research examined the contribution of the second-level Gr factor and several of its first-level factors in divergent thinking. A central aim was to explore the relationship of Gr and divergent thinking using scoring methods that distinguish between the quality and quantity of divergent thinking responses. In our recent work on creativity assessment, we have found strong evidence for the reliability and validity of subjective scoring methods (Silvia, 2011, Silvia et al., 2009a,

Participants

A total of 147 people enrolled in psychology courses at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro volunteered to participate and received credit toward a research participation option. Because of the project's substantial language component, we excluded a priori participants who didn't speak English as a native language (n = 13); three additional participants were excluded for extensive missing data or for misunderstanding the instructions. This left a final sample of 131 people. The sample

Analysis plan and model specification

All models were estimated with maximum likelihood with robust standard errors, using Mplus 7. There was relatively little missing data: covariance coverage was at least 94% and was typically greater than 99%. All indicators were centered at the sample's grand mean (Kline, 2011). The models were evaluated for outlying and influential cases using Mahalanobis's distance, Cook's distance, and individual contributions to the log-likelihood.3

Creativity and the CHC model

The present research explored how divergent thinking fits within the second-level factor of broad retrieval ability (Gr). Divergent thinking tasks involve open-ended idea production, like most verbal fluency tasks, but they are scored for the creativity of the ideas. Because common scoring methods essentially equate idea quality and quantity (Silvia et al., 2008), much research on divergent thinking is largely or solely measuring quantity of idea production. As a result, the relationship

Conclusion

The present research examined the role of the CHC Gr factor in divergent thinking. Because past assessment methods have confounded creative quality and quantity—or assessed only quantity—the role of Gr in divergent thinking may have been exaggerated. When new assessment and scoring methods are used—ones that emphasize to participants that they should try to be creative and that use subjective scoring to dissociate creativity and fluency—a significant role for the second-level Gr factor appears

References (76)

  • P.J. Silvia et al.

    Making creative metaphors: The importance of fluid intelligence for creative thought

    Intelligence

    (2012)
  • P.J. Silvia et al.

    A snapshot of creativity: Evaluating a quick and simple method for assessing divergent thinking

    Thinking Skills and Creativity

    (2009)
  • P.J. Silvia et al.

    Openness to experience, plasticity, and creativity: Exploring lower-order, higher-order, and interactive effects

    Journal of Research in Personality

    (2009)
  • T.M. Amabile

    Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (1982)
  • R.E. Beaty et al.

    Why do ideas get more creative across time? An executive interpretation of the serial order effect in divergent thinking tasks

    Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts

    (2012)
  • R.E. Beaty et al.

    Metaphorically speaking: Cognitive abilities and the production of figurative speech

    Memory and Cognition

    (2013)
  • M. Benedek et al.

    Associative abilities underlying creativity

    Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts

    (2012)
  • W.A. Bousfield et al.

    The relationship between order and frequency of occurrence of restricted associated responses

    Journal of Experimental Psychology

    (1950)
  • W.A. Bousfield et al.

    An analysis of sequences of restricted associative responses

    The Journal of General Psychology

    (1944)
  • J.B. Carroll

    Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies

    (1993)
  • P.P. Carson et al.

    Managing creativity enhancement through goal-setting and feedback

    Journal of Creative Behavior

    (1993)
  • F.F. Chen et al.

    Modeling general and specific variance in multifaceted constructs: A comparison of the bifactor model to other approaches

    Journal of Personality

    (2012)
  • F.F. Chen et al.

    A comparison of bifactor and second-order models of quality of life

    Multivariate Behavioral Research

    (2006)
  • P.R. Christensen et al.

    Relations of creative responses to working time and instructions

    Journal of Experimental Psychology

    (1957)
  • P.M. Clark et al.

    Fluency as a pervasive element in the measurement of creativity

    Journal of Educational Measurement

    (1970)
  • J. Dixon

    Quality versus quantity: The need to control for the fluency factor in originality scores from the Torrance Tests

    Journal for the Education of the Gifted

    (1979)
  • D.W. Drewes

    Beyond the Spearman-Brown: A structural approach to maximal reliability

    Psychological Methods

    (2000)
  • R.B. Ekstrom et al.

    Manual for kit of factor-referenced cognitive tests

    (1976)
  • D.P. Flanagan et al.

    Essentials of cross-battery assessment

    (2007)
  • J.W. Getzels et al.

    Creativity and intelligence: Explorations with gifted students

    (1962)
  • K.J. Gilhooly et al.

    Divergent thinking: Strategies and executive involvement in generating novel uses for familiar objects

    British Journal of Psychology

    (2007)
  • J.P. Guilford

    The nature of human intelligence

    (1967)
  • J.E. Gustafsson

    On the hierarchical structure of ability and personality

  • J.E. Gustafsson et al.

    General and specific abilities as predictors of school achievement

    Multivariate Behavioral Research

    (1993)
  • G.R. Hancock et al.

    Rethinking construct reliability within latent variable systems

  • D.M. Harrington

    Effects of explicit instructions to “be creative” on the psychological meaning of divergent thinking test scores

    Journal of Personality

    (1975)
  • D. Hocevar

    A comparison of statistical infrequency and subjective judgment as criteria in the measurement of originality

    Journal of Personality Assessment

    (1979)
  • D. Hocevar

    Ideational fluency as a confounding factor in the measurement of originality

    Journal of Educational Psychology

    (1979)
  • Cited by (186)

    • Associative thinking at the core of creativity

      2023, Trends in Cognitive Sciences
    View all citing articles on Scopus

    We are grateful to Kathryn Aliff, Gabrielle Dailey, Parnia Haj-Mohamadi, Pegah Haj-Mohamadi, Mary Amanda Harmon, Casey Kelly, Jennifer Schenker, Molly Schloss, Tess Warren, and Alireza Zibaie for assisting with data collection and scoring.

    View full text