The start of modern creativity research is usually traced to Guilford's work in the 1950s, and Guilford's early distinction between divergent and convergent production has had a surprisingly long life in creativity research. In particular, the notion that divergent thinking performance is based on associations between concepts persists as an explanation for individual differences in task performance. In the present work, we sought to revisit the widely-held view among creativity researchers that intelligence and creativity are unrelated. Executive abilities and processes may play a larger role than previously thought, for two reasons. First, divergent thinking tasks are probably significantly executive, particularly regarding interference management.
…show more content…
Strategy use thus could also explain why responses become better over time, and it implies that variables that influence strategy use — such as Gf — moderate this effect. It is ironic that Guilford's model of creativity continues to influence modern creativity research because the model of intelligence it stemmed from has relatively little influence in modern intelligence research. Unlike the SOI model, the Cattell–Horn–Carroll (CHC) approach emphasizes a hierarchical structure of abilities. The CHC approach doesn't necessarily view divergent and convergent processes as opposed dimensions of thought that require different abilities or processes. Instead, this approach would seek to understand what abilities are tapped by divergent thinking tasks and where these abilities reside within the CHC model. Carroll (1993), for example, viewed divergent thinking tasks as markers of an FO (Originality/Creativity) factor. The FO factor, along with factors such as Ideational Fluency (FI) and Word Fluency (FW), resided under the second-level factor of Gr (Broad Retrieval Ability), the “capacity to readily call up concepts, ideas, and names from long-term
Strategy use thus could also explain why responses become better over time, and it implies that variables that influence strategy use — such as Gf — moderate this effect. It is ironic that Guilford's model of creativity continues to influence modern creativity research because the model of intelligence it stemmed from has relatively little influence in modern intelligence research. Unlike the SOI model, the Cattell–Horn–Carroll (CHC) approach emphasizes a hierarchical structure of abilities. The CHC approach doesn't necessarily view divergent and convergent processes as opposed dimensions of thought that require different abilities or processes. Instead, this approach would seek to understand what abilities are tapped by divergent thinking tasks and where these abilities reside within the CHC model. Carroll (1993), for example, viewed divergent thinking tasks as markers of an FO (Originality/Creativity) factor. The FO factor, along with factors such as Ideational Fluency (FI) and Word Fluency (FW), resided under the second-level factor of Gr (Broad Retrieval Ability), the “capacity to readily call up concepts, ideas, and names from long-term