ArticlePDF Available


Reviews the literature relating children's creativity to the degree of autonomy experienced in teacher– and parent–child relationships. Findings indicate that the amount of independence that children experience in their relationships with teachers and parents does influence their creative ability. In general, freedom seems to enhance creativity, but there are indications that the relationship is curvilinear, and the optimum amount of freedom may depend on the particular task and type of creativity under consideration. The relationship between parent–child warmth and children's creativity is less clear. The mixed results may be indicative of a curvilinear relationship that varies with the extremes of creativity under consideration as well as the particular task used to measure creativity. It is concluded that (1) more precision is needed in defining what is meant by freedom, both from teachers and parents; (2) research is needed to elucidate the mechanisms by which freedom leads to greater creativity, whether by producing greater independence or through ideational playfulness; and (3) new research should examine which particular aspects of freedom influence specific types of creativity and how these variables interact with each other and with the characteristics children bring to their life situations. (3 p ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
F. <=. /7'-/-tll//vZ)
Futonomq crnd Cracrtivi tp
in Ch tldroa
In recentyears millions of words have been written ins'-:--::--:
anyone who will listen how to raise creative children. One
theme runs through them all: freedom. Taylor (1973) sug-
gested teachers should leave students alone; Miel (1961)
wrote that students need freedom to rebel; and Moustakas
(1967), that they need freedom not to conform' Torrance and
Myers (1970) exhorted teachers to give students freedom to
experiment with new ideas and behavior. Rogers (1959)
posited psychological f reedom as one of the conditions
necessary for fostering creativity. MacKinnon (1962) urged
teachers and parents to use caution in setting limits.
One rationale for recommending that children be given
freedom is based on the nature of creativity itself : since it
involves producing something that is new and different, it
would seem to demand a degree of independence in the
creator. The assumption is made that children learn to act
independently when they are given the freedom to do so and
that they will carry this independent attitude to adulthood. This
reasoning is supported by the observation that creative indi'
viduals are more independent than their peers (e.g., Barron,
1963, MacKinnon, 1962) and by MacKinnon's observation
(1962) that creative architects more often than their peers
reportthatunusualfreedom was grantedto them intheir early
leans\1\err panes\s.
their re\ationships with adu\ts grow up to be more creatrve than
their peers. There is, however, a sizable body of literature
relating children's creativity to the degree of autonomy expe.
Volume 16 Number 1 First Quarter
The Journal of Creative Behavior
Contro l-R u to no m v
rienced in teacher-child and Parent-child relationships'
Using a wide variety of measures of independence and
creativity, several stuiies have found that greater freedom is
related io higher levels of creativity in children (Balagtas'
1969; Dewinj a fuft, 1973; Domino, 1979; Dreyer e' Wells'
tgO6; fttinge-r, 1965; Harrison, 1973; Nuttall' 1970;Weisberg
g Spring"i 1961) and adolescents (Datta & Parloff' 1967;
Dauw, 1566; Cetr"ls t' Jackson, 1961; Halpin' Payne t' Ellett'
1973; Nichols, 1964). However, the relationships in these
studies are not always very strong' Several used many
measures, and the number that reached significance was
sometimes only slightly greater than chance' At the same
time, only one siudy found restrictive practices to be positively
related to creativity (Orinstein, 1962) and four found no rela-
tionship (Reid, 1972; Schwartz, 1976; Sheldon' 1968; Silver'
berg, 1971 ).
(Aldous, 1975; Busse , 1967). Both indicate that a curvilinear
ielationship is likely and that the kind of control and the task
given the children may also be important variables'
Straus and Straus ( 1968), taking a somewhat different
approach, compared children's creative ability in Bombay and
Minneapolis. The children from Bombay, where family struc-
tures demand more conformity, were less creative' Weisberg
and Springer (1961) found that lack of domination' coupled
with parenial expressiveness, was related to creativity in bright
grade-four pupilt, suggesting that other parental variables
interact with control in influencing children's creative ability.
Parental absence has been considered evidence of inde-
pendence from parents. Only one such study concerned itself
with children: Schaefer (1970) reported that four of ten crea-
tive adolescent girls studied in depth came from broken
homes. However, this is a rather drastic steP to take to encour-
age children's creativity, and it is doubtful that it is always
A somewhat less extreme form of parental absence is found
in homes where both parents work; it is likely that these chil'
dren have more freedom than their peers' Dewing and Taft
(1973), Cetzels ai-rd iackson (1961) and Schaefer (1970) all
report the creative subjects were more likely then the non-
creatives to have two working parents. only Aldous (1973)
did not find children's creativity to be influenced by the
mothers' work status.
L_ ;T
motionol Ties
Ser"B@loted fFacts
Autonomy and Creativity in Children
MacKinnon (1962) has pointed out that the counterpart to
greater autonomy may be a lack of close emotional ties
between parents and children. No consistent pattern of results
has emerged from research into this question. Several studies
used comparison groups with highly distinct differences in
their levels of creative ability; they found a negative relation-
ship between parentalwarmth and creative achievement
(Aldous, 1975; Orinstein, 1962; Schaefer, 1970; Schaefer t,
Anastasi, 1968). Other studies used comparison groups that
were less distinct in their creative ability; they found a positive
relationship between parentalwarmth or acceptance and crea-
tivity (Nuttall, i970; Silverberg, 1971; Weisberg t, Springer,
1961) or no relationship (Busse, 1967; Datta E Parloff, 1967;
Nichols, 1964: Sheldon, 1968). These mixed results may indi-
cate that there is no relationship between creativity and paren-
tal warmth, or they may lead us to believe that the effect of the
relationship depends on the degree of creative ability being
studied and the manner in which it is measured. Two reports
lend credence to this latter interpretation. Both Aldous (1975)
and Silverberg (1971) studied four levels of creative ability:
they found a nonlinear relationship, with both high and low
levels of warmth enhancing children's scores.
A number of studies raise the possibility that the effects of
parent-child relationships depend on the sex of the parent
andf or child under consideration. The most common finding
is f or father-daughter relationships (Anastasi t, Schaefer,
i 969; Dauw, 1966; Harrison, 1973; Weisberg & Springer,
1961) or father-child relations (Aldous, 1975; Datta t Parloff,
1967; Nuttall, 1970; Silverberg, 1971 ) to be more implicated in
children's creativity than mother.daughter or mother.child
relationships. A few found the mothers' relationship more
important (Balagtas, 1969; Dewing & Taft, 1973; Domino,
1979; Dreyer , Wells, 1966) and in the Halpin et al. study
(1973), boys but not girls were influenced by both parents.
Schaefer and Anastasi ( i 968) found creative-artistic boys had
closer relationships with their mothers than their fathers, while
creative-scientific boys were closer to their fathers, again indi-
cating the importance of the type of creativity under consider-
The research summarized above does support the idea of a
link between autonomy in parent-child relations and children's
creativity. Other studies have looked at the relationship
between the degree of autonomy children have in school and
their creative ability. The outcomes, while mixed, do Iend some
Taochrnq Stglo
Open du(otion
The Joumal of Creative Behavior
support to the belief that autonomy and creativity are linked'
tiabtree ( 1967) showed that a program structured by both
pupils and teachers resulted in greater creativity than a similar
program planned entirely by the teacher. When comPared to
highly controlling teachers, low control teachers were found to
have more creative pupils on verbal but not figural tests
(Wodtke & Wallen, 1965). White and Owen (1970) and Tor'
rance (1965) found self-evaluation or no evaluation led to
higher creativity scores than peer or teacher evaluation' War-
drop et al. (1969) found pupils of facilitative teachers were
more creative than those of nonfacilitative teachers.
Three studies compared the creative abilities of pupils
taught by direct and indirect teachers (Soar, 1968; Weber,
1968a,b; Wood t, Larsen, 1976). All found an indirect teaching
style had positive effects on creativity' In one study (Weber,
1968a, b) it was shown to enhance verbal but nr:t figural
creativity; the latter was enhanced by direct methods' Soar
( 1968) found the rate of increase in pupil creativity was faster
for low-anxious than high-anxious pupils.
Many studies compare the creativity of children in open and
traditional classrooms. Since one of the core concePts of open
education is to give pupils greater control over their iearning
activities, it is generally assumed that open classrooms are
more conducive to creativity than traditional ones. A survey of
the literature provides only partial support for this belief'
Ogilvie (1974) ranked five schools from most to least open'
Highest scores were obtained by students in the "mid-road"
schools, while highly structured (traditional) and highly
unstructured (oPen) schools were equally successful'
Nogrady (1976) also found limited suPport for a nonlinear
relationship. Several other studies found open education was
associated with higher creativity scores (Barker Lunn, 1970;
Butt, 1972; Haddon t, Lytton, 1968, i971; Hyman, 1978;
McCormick et al., 1978) and that these effects were long-term
(Butt, 1972;Haddon t, Ly'tton, 1971).Two studies rePort mixed
results, with open'education students scoring higher on some
tests and traditionallytaught pupils excelling on others (Lytton
& Cotton, 1969; Ramey t, Piper, 1974). Yet another study (Wil'
son et al.7972) found that pupils in a school that had used an
open approach for six years earned higher divergent thinking
scores than pupits in traditional classes, but pupils in a school
that had only recently adopted open education methods
scored lowest. Still other studies found no effect of open
education (Forman E McKinney, 1978; Carhart, 1976; Ruedi,
1 975; Walke r, 1964;and Wright, 1 97 5)' J ust one study (Ward t'
i: lj::
Autonomy and Creativity in Children
Barcher, 1975) found only the traditional to be more effective'
and its effectivenes' *u' li*it"d to one grouP of students
(above-average ability) on figural tests'
Discussion Most of t#tt'Ji"t prior tJ 1975 reported that open educa-
tion enhanced at least some aspect of creativity; most studies
since then d;;. Although it has been suggested (Forman t'
McKinney, igi8'Wu'a &-Barcher' 1975) that the differences
recent y"u","u n'-ber o"f well'd.esigned studies' both recent
and older, iiJlrra that open educition was associated with
greater p'p'i t*"i'"ity (Haddon t' Lytton' 1968' 1971 ; Hyman'
1978; McCor-LX "t ui'' lgZgl' A more likely explanation for
this disparity may be found in recent changes in educational
practice. rit'" iirsl rePorts (Barker Lunn' 1970;Haddon E Lyt-
ton, 1968, igil,Lytion & Cotton' 1969;Ogilvie' i974) com'
pare teacnin-g 'iyf"i that hadevolved in English schools in the
sixties. Since then' "oPen education" has become the band-
wagon of the seventies (Myers & Duke' 1977)' with several
consequences' For one' many "traditional" teachers have
adopted some of the practices of open education' so that the
traditional schools of recent studies may be closer to the
midroad schools of earlier years' Ward and Barcher ( 1975)' for
example, ;"d that the diff erences between their two teacher
groups seemed to be differences of degree rather than of kind'
Furthermore, the two recent studies that did find differences
(Hyman, f gZg'Mtt"rmick et al" 1978) studied open and tradi-
tional classes that used very different methods'
A second consequence was that many of the classrooms
studied *";" ;;;i;r relatively brief periods' Those recent
reports that specify the duration indicate a few months to three
years' Schools tirat have recently changed to the open
upp,outf''u'" t"" effective (Wilson el al'' 7912)' possibly
because't"rnpo'u'y inconsistencies led them to resemble
Ogilvie's lIini"t""ninate" school that was least effective'
nu,tf'e'rno'"' t*tf'"" who wish to change may not be able to
do so effectively (Barker Lunn' 1970)' and the changes that do
occur *'li;" graauat' And even if teachers could change
practices quickly' pupils take time to gain the full benefits
(wilson et al" 1972)'
losophy (Giaquinta & Kazlow' 19'80)' or it may be imposed by
ua-lni'iu=io'-' '"gu'at"ss of teachers' views' As a result' it is
po*iur"irtul ma;y open classrooms have some characteris-
tics of open education - group work' movement of pupils'
The Journal of Creative Behavior
many and varied teaching materials - while lacking in the
element most likely to influence creativity: student control.
Future studies should look more closely at the specific
elements in open education that would be expected to
encourage independence and creative thinking as well as
examine which kinds of creative thinking benefit (figural,
verbal, artistic, scientific, etc.).
Yet another consequence of the recent popularity of open
education is that it is often combined with other bandwagon
methods. particularly in the recent studies that found no
effects. Forman and McKinney's open classes (1978) also
used team teaching and open architecture. In Wilson et al.
(1972), it was combined with nongrading and open architec.
ture. In Wright's study (1975), it was confounded with open-
area building and family grouping.
Future research should also look for the influence of indi.
vidual differences on pupils' responses to different teaching
methods. While some studies consider IQ and SES their con-
cern is mainly how to control their effects rather than to deter-
mine what they are;yet IQ seems likely to influence the effects
of open education on creativity (Haddon & Lytton, i968;
Ogilvie, 1974; Ward t, Barcher, 1975). Similarly, lower-class
parents and pupils seem to prefer traditional schools (Myers 6
Duke, 1977). and Morris and Torrance (1977) have shown that
economically disadvantaged children failto effectively use the
freedom they are given. No study considered the effects of the
pupils' initial level of creativity on the extent to which creativity
is affected by educational practice even though there are indi.
cations that pupils creativity influences their responses to
their environment (Dimoff, 1975;MacDonald t Raths, i964;
Wardrop et al., 1969;Yamamoto, 1963).
The amount of independence that children experience in their
relationships with teachers and parents does influence their
creative ability. In general, freedom seems to enhance creativ-
ity, but there are indications that the relationship is curvilinear,
and the optimum amount of freedom may depend on the
particular task and type of creativity under consideration. The
relationship between parent-child warmth and children's crea-
tivity is less clear. The mixed results may be indicative of a
curvilinear relationship that varies with the extremes of
creativity under consideration as well as the particular task
used to measure creativity.
In general, the studies posed very broad questions. Nlore
precision is needed in defining what is meant by freedom, both
Autonomy and Creativity in Children
from teachers and parents. Research is needed to elucidate
the mechanisms by which freedom leads to greater creativity,
whether by producing greater independence, as MacKinnon
(1962) implies, through greater emotional security (Rogers,
1959) or through ideational playfulness (Torrance t' Myers,
1970). New research should examine which particular aspects
of freedom influence specif ic types of creativity and how these
variables interact with each other and with the charac-
teristics children bring to their life situations.
None of the research reviewed sheds light on the
direction of the relationship. Although it is assumed that
teacher and parent behavior influences the children's
creativity, it is conceivable that the child's characteris-
tics influence the adults' behavior, or that both adults
and children are influenced by a third factor.
ALDOUS. J. Family background factors and originality in children. Clfted
ChllC Quartcrlg, 1973. 17, l83-192.
ALDOOS, J. The search for alternatives: parental behaviors and children s
origrnal problem solutions. Journal of Marriage and the FamiLg, 1975, i7,
ANASTASI, A. E SCHAEFER, C. Biographical correlates of artistic and literary
creativity in adolescent girls. Journal of Apptied Psgchologg,1969, 53,
BALACTAS. T. M. The relationshlp between parental attitudes and children s
creativity in rhythmic movements. Disseftation Abstracts. 1969, 29,4304'
BARKER LUNN, J. C. Stream[ng in the primarg school. London: National
Foundation for Educational Research. 1970.
BARRON, F. The disposition toward originality. In Taylor, C. W. & Barron, F.
(eds.), Scientlflc creatittitg: its recognition and deuelopment. NYC: Wiley
1 963.
BUSSE. T.Y. ChildrearIng antecedents of flexibLe thinking. Eric Document
ED 022530.
BUTT, R. L. School organizationalclimate and student creativity. Unpublished
M. A. Thesis, University of Saskatchewan (Regina Campus). 1972.
CRABTREE, C. Effects of structuring on the productiveness of children s
thinking. Journal of Experimental Education, 1967,36, 1.13.
DATTA, L. E. a PARLOFF, M. B. The relevance of autonomy: parent.child
relationshipsandearlyscientificcreativity. ProceedingsoftheT5thAnnual
Conuention of the Amer[can Psgchological Association. 1967. 2, 149.150.
DAUW D. C. The life experiences of original thinkers and good elaborators.
Exceptional Children, 1966, 32, 433-440.
DEWINC. K. E TAFT, M. Some characteristics of the parents of creative
twelve-year-old s. J o urna I of Perso nal itg, 197 3, 4 1, 1 1 -85.
DIMOFF, E. The effects of initial structure upon young children s divergent
thinking. Craduate Research in Educatlon and Related Disciplines,
1975, 8.45-67.
DOMINO, C. Creativity and the home environmenl. Aifted Child Quarterlg,
DREYER, A. S. & WELLS, M. B. Parentalvalues, parental control, and creativity
in young children. Journal of Marr[age and the Familg, 1966, 28. 83-88.
The Journal of Creative Behavior
ELLINCER, B. D. The home environment and the creative thinking ability of
children. DisseftationAbstracts. 1965, 25 6308'
FORMAN, S. C. & McKINNEY. J. D Creativity and achievement of second
qrad"rs rn oPen and traditronal classrooms Journal of Educational Psg'
Znotoq,a. 1978. 101 107
CARHART. C. K A comparatrve study of creativity' achievement' and selected
personality variables in open and ira^ditlolu] f::I1h^Stade classrooms Dis.
seftatianAbstracls lnter national. '1976' 36 5991A'
- riraVJ,fr.sourcesof highlyinteliigentgl{9lh]ghlycreativeadolescents'
Amirican Soclologlcal Reuieu: 1961' 26' 351'359'
CIACOUINTA, J B. & KASLOW' C The growth and decline of public school
innovations: a national study of the open classroom in the United States'
Journal of Curricttlum SluCles. 198A, 12 61'73'
HADDON. F..A. & LYTTON. H Teaching approach and the development of
aivergent thinking abilities in primary schools' British Journal oi Educa'
tbn;l Psgchologg lg68 3B, 171'180'
abilities - f our years on. Brltish Jou rnal of EclucationaL Psgchologg'197 1'
,11. t36-141.
HALPIN, W. C,. PAYNE, D. A & ELLETT C D Biographical correlatgt-9f tl:
' ii"u,iu. personality: gifted adolescents. Erception al Chiltlren. 1973, 39.
HARRISOiI. J. B. Variables of home environment associated with creativity in
children. Dissertalion Abstracls lnternatianaL' 1973' 33' 3918B'
HYMAN. R. B. Creativity in open and traditional classrooms The Elen'Lentarg
School Journal l97B.78 267'214'
LYTTON. H. E COTTON. A C Divergent thinking abilities in :"^Tl9:'y
schools. British JournaL of EaucaticnaL Psgchologg 1969' J9 188'190'
Elementarg School Journal' 1964 65 131'143'
MacKINNON, D W. The nature and nurture of creative talent' American
P sgc hotog i st. 1962. 1 7. 484'495'
,tirctrr" and examiner style: the effect on creativity in children' Child
Studg Journal l97B. 8. 7 5'82'
MIEL. A, Creatlaitg in teaching: lnL'itations ancl [nstances Belmont' CA:
Wadsworth. 1961.
MORRIS, J. & TORRANCE. E P Abilityto usefreedom allowed under rules by
"ar".i"g"a and disadvantaged children Journal of Creatitte Behauior'
1977. il.215.
MOUSTAKAS, C. Creativity and conformity in education ln Mooney' R L t'
n"rlt. T. A. (eds.). Explorations in creatit'itg NYC: Harper & Row' 1967'
MYERS, D. A. & DOKE, D. L. Open education as ideology Educational
Rese a rc h. 1,91 7, 1 9' 221'235.
creativity of their children. Child DeceLopment' 1964' 35' 104'l'1049'
NOCRADY. M. E. An investigation of the relation between open structure
Ab stracts I nter natio nal, 197 6. 3 6, 1 304-1 305A'
ground, educational u.hi"ue-ent, and parental attitudes on the creative
B"r_]urio, of ten year old boys. Disseftation Abstracts lnternational,7970,
Autonomy and Creativity in Children
OGILVIE, E. Creativity and curriculum structure Educational Research'
1914, t6, 126'132.
ORINSTEIN, A. S An investigation of parentat child-rearing attitudes and
- .i"",irny i^ children. Disseiarion Abstracts' 1962' 22 4085'4086'
RAMEY, C. T. E PIPER, V. Creativity in open and traditional classrooms Child
D ea elo P ment, 1.974, 45, 551'560'
REID, I. F. An exploratory study of the relationship between selected environ'
' rn"nruf variables and' a measu'e of creativity in children D[ssertation
Abstracts I nternational. 1972' 32' 5619n''
ROCERS, C. R. Toward a theory of creativity ln An-derson' n H (ed')' Creatiu'
ilg and its cultit ation NYC: Harper t' Row l9)v'
RUEDI. J. E. W. Comparison of creativity in open environment and traditional
classroo ms. D i s s e rlatr
o n A b str acts l'nt e r nati
o rLal' 1 97 5' 3 5' 7 1 34 A'
SCHAEFER, C E A psychological study-of 10 exceptionally creative adoles'
ent girls. Exceptio nal Children' 1910' 36' 431'441'
SCHAEFER' C. E. & ANASTASI, A. Creativity in adolescent boys. Journal of
A p pt i ed Psgc hol o g g, 1968, 52' 42'48'
scHwARTZ, P The antecedents of creativity in young children and their
.-l"fution to parental authoritarianism and other variables Dissrtation
Abstracts I nternational, 197 6' 36' 46128'
SHELDON, E. Parental child'rearing attitudes and their relationship to cogni-
tive functioning oi tn"it'priudoi""""nt sons' Dissertation Abstracts' 1968'
SILVERBERC, R. A. The relationship of children's percePtions of parental
behavior to the creativity of their t'hild'"n Dtsseftation Abstracts lnterna'
tio nal, 197 1, 3 1. 6413'6414 A''
SOAR, R. S. Optimum teacher'pupil interaction for pupilgrowth Educational
Lead e rs hiP. 196A, 26, 27 5'2BO'
STRAUS, J H. & STRAOS, M A Family roles and sex differences in creativity
of children in Bombay und Minn"ipolis. Journal of Marriage and the
Fanilg, 1968' 30. 46.53'
TAYLOR, C. W. Clues to creative thinking: the creative process and education'
i nstructor 1973.73 (Nou), 4'5'
TORRANCE, E.P. Rewarding creaLiL)e behauior: experiments in classroom
crealiL'itg Englewood CIiffs: Prentice Hall' 19b)
TORRANCE, E. P. & MYERS, R E Creatiue learning and teaching NYC:
Dodd, Mead, 1970'
WALKER, W. J. Creativity and high school climate' In Cowan' J' C'' Demos'
Ct O. & Torrun.", f' 6 ("at )i CreatiDit!): its educattonal impl[cations'
NYC:John WileY, 1964'
wARD, w. D. & BARCHER, P R. Reading achie_vement and creativity as related
to open classroom "r,-p",i"ntu' y' urial of Educational PsgchoLogg' 1975'
covlNCToN, M. v., intlrtinrELD' R S E RoNDA' T' The development of
Droductive thinking skills in fifth'grade children fheJou rnal of Expertmen'
Lal EclucaIion. 1969 37 61'11'
WEBER. W. A. Relationships between teacher behavior and pupil creativity'
Eric Document ED 028 150, 1968 (a)
WEBER" W. A. Teacher behavior and pupil creativity Dissertation Abstracts'
1968.29,159A. (b)
tion. Archlue s of Aeneral Psgchiatrg 1961' 5' 64-14'
The Journal of Creative Behavior
WHITE, K. E OWEN, D. Locus of evaluation for classroom work and the
development of creative potential. psgchologg in the Schoolr, tgiO, i,
WILSON, F. S.. LANGEVTN; R; j;,STUCKEy, T. Are pupits in the open ptan
schoor different? Journal of Educationat nesear[n, $72, 66.115.i1g.
WODTKE, K. H. E WALLEN, N. E. The effects of teacher control in the
ciassroom on pupiis' creativity-test gains. American Education Research
J ourna L, 1965. 2. 7 5.82.
WOOD. D. E LARSEN, C. y The effects of different teaching styles on crea_
tivity.Onpublishedmanuscript.abstracted inJournalof CrZati'ueBehaoiir,
WRICHT. R. J. The affective and cognitive consequences of an open educa.
tion eiementary school. Americai Ed ucation Research Journ)l, rc7 5, 1r,
YAMAMOTO' K. Rerationships between creative thinking abirities of teachers
and achiev^ement and adjustment of pupils. Journal of f*p"ri^"ntut iii.
cation, 1963, 32.2.25.
F. C. Rejskind, Assistant professor
Address: McCill UniversitV, .lacul of Education, 3700 McTavish Street,
Montreal. Quebec, Canada H3A lyi.
... Autonomy and independence have also been tied to creative potential in early developmental and personality literature (e.g. Albert & Runco, 1988;Cropley, 1971;Rejskind, 1982;Torrance, 1965;Treffinger, 1980). For instance, Ch. A. Wright and S. D. Wright (1986) defined creative family environment and stressed three main components, i.e. (1) acceptance and respect for the child, (2) stimulation of independence, and (3) enriched learning environment. ...
The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between dimensions of a constructive parenting style, (i.e. parental acceptance and autonomy granting) factors of the climate for creativity in parent–child relationships (encouragement to experience novelty and variety, encouragement of nonconformism, support of perseverance in creative efforts, and encouragement to fantasize), and parents’ visual mental imagery. 313 parents of children between 6 and 12 years of age participated in the study. The results indicated that (a) a constructive parenting style was positively related to three of four factors of the climate for creativity in the parent–child relationships, i.e. encouragement to experience novelty and variety, support of perseverance in creative efforts, and encouragement to fantasize in the parent–child relationship; (b) parents’ level of vividness of mental imagery was positively related with both parental acceptance of child and autonomy support as well as components of climate for creativity in parent–child relationship; (c) mothers scored significantly higher than fathers in exhibiting acceptance of a child; (d) parents’ gender played an important role in the relations between dimensions of constructive parenting style and factors of climate for creativity in parent–child relationships. Findings were discussed in terms of the implications for further research and theory development in the area of family influences on the development of children’s creativity.
... One of the most surprising results that emerged was the discovery of multiple interventions that placed children as independent users of the training, not needing external administrators. Given that autonomy and independence are two variables highly associated with creative individuals it is not surprising that these lead to behaviors of exploration, curiosity, and experimentation in children (Feist, 1999;Rejskind, 1982). Therefore, providing programs that empower children in their autonomy is beneficial for creativity outcomes. ...
Full-text available
Creativity is an ability with psychological and developmental benefits. Creative levels are dynamic and oscillate throughout life, with a first major decline occurring at the age of 7 years old. However, creativity is an ability that can be nurtured if trained, with evidence suggesting an increase in this ability with the use of validated creativity training. Yet, creativity training for young children (aged between 6-9 years old) appears scarce. Additionally, existing training interventions resemble test-like formats and lack playful dynamics that could engage children in creative practices over time. This PhD project aimed at contributing to creativity stimulation in children by proposing to use social robots as intervention tools, thus adding playful and interactive dynamics to the training. Towards this goal, we conducted three studies in schools, summer camps, and museums for children, that contributed to the design, fabrication, and experimental testing of a robot whose purpose was to re-balance creative levels. Study 1 (n = 140) aimed at testing the effect of existing activities with robots in creativity and provided initial evidence of the positive potential of robots for creativity training. Study 2 (n = 134) aimed at including children as co-designers of the robot, ensuring the robot’s design meets children’s needs and requirements. Study 3 (n = 130) investigated the effectiveness of this robot as a tool for creativity training, showing the potential of robots as creativity intervention tools. In sum, this PhD showed that robots can have a positive effect on boosting the creativity of children. This places social robots as promising tools for psychological interventions.
... Rank (1936) also suggested that early life experiences, particularly concerning the degree to which parents support independence, have a strong influence on the development of autonomous creative will. Many investigations have supported the suppsition that, when parents encourage independence, their children's creativity is enhanced (Albert & Runco, 1989; G a e l s & Jackson, 1961; Rejskind, 1982). Thus, in Study 2, subjects' perceptions of their mother's and father's autonomy-supportiveness was assessed; it was predicted that these variables would also be positively related to creativity. ...
Four measures of self-determination (SD) were correlated with two measures of trait creativity. In Study 1, subjects high on the Creative Personality Scale (Gough, 1979) and the Problem-Solving/Creativity scale (Marsh & O'Neill, 1984) were found to strive for self-determined reasons, to strive toward greater SD, and to evidence higher SD in measures of both motivational orientation and self-concept. Study 2 replicated most of these findings and also showed that creative subjects perceived their parents to be more autonomy supportive. Results are interpreted in terms of a general disposition to be self-determining that may help attune creative people to deeper cognitive resources and capacities within themselves.
... La compétence technique est le plus souvent développée en entreprise et la connaissance du secteur se révèle être un autre atout non négligeable. D'autre part, l'éducation reçue peut avoir favorisé l'esprit créatif et la capacité d'autonomie (Rejskind, 1980). Certaines cultures valorisent plus fortement la réussite financière et les activités d'affaires (McClelland, 1961). ...
Full-text available
RÉSUMÉ L'objectif de cet article est de présenter les démarches d'élaboration et de validation d'un instrument de sensibilisation à l'entrepreneuriat, simple à administrer, accessible et adapté à différents groupes d'âge. Nous y décrirons l'opérationalisation des variables, la détermination et la représentativité d'un échantillon (2000 sujets), ainsi que les résultats obtenus en fonction des caractéristiques socio-démographiques des répondants. Dans un deuxième temps, nous présenterons les données métrologiques de l'instrument, soit les principales mesures de validité et de fidélité. Enfin, nous conclurons avec les analyses effectuées pour ramener l'instrument à une dimension facile à utiliser auprès de différents publics et avec des supports variés. L'instrument permet donc au répondant d'établir son profil personnel et de se comparer aux entrepreneurs. Le questionnaire évalue au total dix caractéristiques regroupées en trois dimensions : les motivations, les aptitudes et les attitudes.
... Several developmental studies also demonstrated significant positive relations between childhood experiences of freedom and higher levels of creativity (Mackinnon, 1962;Getzels & Jackson, 1962;Weisberg & Springer, 1961). In an early review of the developmental literature, Rejskind (1982) con-cluded that parental practices that support independence appear to enhance children's creativity. She added, however, that the absence of prospective longitudinal studies which directly examine the relation of parenting experiences to later creativity limits the conclusions one can draw from this literature. ...
Compared neurotic and depressive personality characteristics in creative achievers vs eminent but noncreative achievers. 48 Ss' autobiographies were assessed by trained raters on personality using the California Q-Set. Creative achievers included literary and visual artists whereas the control group consisted of political, military, and social leaders. The Q-Set ratings were used to assess the 5 factors of personality. Neuroticism was further divided into subscales that assessed depressive style, impulsivity, and anxiety. Results show that creative achievers were rated significantly higher than controls on general neuroticism, as well as on depressive style and impulsivity. Creative achievers did not differ from controls in anxiety. It was also found that creative achievers were rated significantly higher on openness to experience and agreeableness, but lower on conscientiousness. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Are young children “naturally” creative? Can the creative episode in young children be compared to the process by which the major creators in a society produce their works? The answers to these questions suggest possibilities for how parents and teachers might promote creativity in young children.
In this article, we introduce a mathematical model in economics called principal agent model. We then present our work that extends a standard principal agent model by referring to the literature in psychology. Principal agent model is used for the design of a contract regarding a two-person relationship called agency relationship. In an agency relationship, the principal hires the agent to work for her. Due to the private information the agent possesses, it is impossible for the principal to specify the work in detail. Instead, the model suggests the contract that controls the effort level of the agent indirectly by providing adequate outcome-based incentives. Standard principal agent models in economics consider only extrinsic incentives. However, the literature in psychology shows that intrinsic motivation is also important. We thus extended the standard model by introducing intrinsic motivation.
Block's theory (1984) of gender differences was examined to determine if it could explain inconsistencies in the reports of gender differences and the personality correlates of creativity in children. Additionally, an investigation of 244 gifted children in grades 4 to 8 is described. Two divergent thinking tests, each with a familiar and an unfamiliar item, were used to test cognitive style. The Dependency Proneness Test was used to measure independence, and the Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation‐Behavior Children was used to measure social orientation. No gender differences were found on the measures of personality and cognitive style, and no significant association was found between cognitive style and personality. The results were discussed in light of the moderating influence of sex‐role flexibility and the relative freedom boys and girls experience in peer groups and play.
This article provides a critical review of the literature on delinquency and creativity, focusing on (1) the definition of creativity and its relation to the concepts of “constraint” and “free-will,” (2) the relationship between creativity and delinquency, and (3) the factors that determine whether creativity is exercised in a positive or negative way. While this literature contains many gaps, it is important because it challenges the positivist explanations of delinquency that currently dominate the field. Such explanations argue that adolescents are constrained to engage in delinquency by biological, psychological, and—most commonly—social forces. The creativity literature, however, suggests that the emphasis on constraint may be overstated and that delinquency may best be viewed as a creative enterprise for many adolescents.
The present article is concerned with certain conceptual issues embodied in the description and understanding of creative behavior. Initially, we argue that although creativity has been defined in many ways, the ultimate concern in studies of creativity is the production of novel, socially valued products. Subsequently, we review the literature pertaining to the development of innovative occupational achievement. We suggest that the integration and reorganization of cognitive structures are likely to underlie major creative contributions and that the application of existing cognitive structures is likely to underlie minor contributions. We then extend this interpretation to the processes traditionally held to underlie individual differences in creativity and note that both the major and minor forms of creativity will require a number of different knowledges, skills, and abilities. Further, we suggest that the effective translation of ideas into action will depend on a variety of individual and situational attributes. On the basis of these observations, we concluded that enhanced understanding and prediction will require a more sophisticated multivariate approach. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
One hundred fifth grade children, enrolled in one of two suburban elementary schools (one traditionally organzed and the other with an open orientation), were used to compare various pupil outcome dimensions in two dif educational environments. Subjects used in this expost facto study were balanced with respect to several dimensions of socioeconomic status, ability, and previous achievement prior to assignment to one of the two groups. Differences in school environments were quantified using two instruments. After two and one half years, overall differences were found between the two on several achievement variables. No differences were noted with respect to three measures of personality and three measures of cognition.
Some educators have asserted that pupils in schools with "open plan" philosophies are superior to ordinary pupils in that they have more valued personality characteristics, mature faster, and have better attitudes toward education, as well as their environment, However, empirical evidence to corroborate these assertions is meager. This study compares pupils in two schools with open plan philosophies, to pupils from two traditional schools. Attitudes toward school, teacher, self, learning, and "school last year" were measured using a semantic differential. Pupils were also compared on measures of curiosity and productive thinking, or "creativity." It was found that open plan pupils have more positive attitudes toward school and themselves but there were fewer differences in the other concepts. There were no significant differences in measures of curiosity but differences in productive thinking occurred. Pupils who spent considerable time in an open plan school scored higher on some measures of productive thinking while pupils in a newer open plan school scored consistently less than a control group. The results were related to features of the open plan schools under consideration.
The current use of the IQ metric as the chief criterion of intellectual functioning restricts the study of social correlates of cognition to factors associated largely with "amount of intelligence." It is possible, however, to assess cognitive processes not now adequately sampled by the intelligence test, and to identify individuals differing in what might be called "cognitive style." Two such groups of adolescents were studied: (a) those exceptionally high in intelligence (IQ) but not concomitantly high in creativity, and (b) those exceptionally high in creativity but not concomitantly high in intelligence (IQ). The groups were found to differ not only in intellective and social behavior, but to have their source in differing family environments. How types of cognition are shaped by types of family structure would seem to be a fruitful area for further theoretical and empirical examination.
We are reporting here a psychiatric and psychological study of gifted children, which attempts to elicit significant and relevant factors in family life contributing to functional creativity. Application of the principles of dynamic psychiatry to the area of creative functioning has, in the past, been limited in scope. Kubie's recent book10 on the subject, for instance, is still basically addressed to the question that has been embarrassing psychiatrists for half a century: Does analysis, in modifying the conflict areas of the personality, quell inner tensions that are necessary to the creative act? Some interest has been expressed in the nature of creativity as an intrapsychic process, but there has been little agreement and no clear formulation.1,2,7 One implicit assumption that has been shared by many psychologists and psychiatrists working with creativity has been that creative function is a constitutional variable, much as is
A test is made of the theory that children's creativity varies according to the degree to which the child's role in the family requires conformity to conventional norms. A test of this "conformity-inhibition" theory is made possible by the known differences in degree to which Indian and American society expect normative conformity of children, and also because both societies expect greater conformity on the part of girls. Creativity was measured by the ability to generate ideas which might solve a puzzle in the form of a game presented for solution to husband-wife-child groups. Data for 128 family groups show that the Bombay children had lower scores than the Minneapolis sample. Girls' scores were lower than those of boys in both societies. Sex differences in creativity were greatest in Bombay. The lesser sex difference in the Minneapolis sample is interpreted as reflecting the greater freedom and individuality permitted girls in American society. As societies change towards a less restrictive normative code, individual creativity is likely to increase.
This study investigated the family climate in which creative behavior in young children develops. Measures involved the instrumental-expressive orientation, role tension, and degree of autonomy-granting of the parents of more and less creative children. Twenty-four middle-class children, ages four and five, and their parents were selected for study. The parents of high-creative children had less domestic value consensus and more role tension than the parents of low-creative children, reflecting an emphasis on individual divergence and expression of feeling. There were no significant differences between parents of high- and low-creative children in their degree of autonomy-granting.