ArticlePDF Available

Chess: A game of Kings or the King of Games? A Study of Creativity in Gifted and Non-Gifted Students

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Chess is a game that requires higher order cognitive skills because of its complicated rules. The main goal of this study was to analyse the effect of chess on domain-specific creativities among gifted and non-gifted high-school students. The study was conducted using data of 476 students, including 260 gifted students and 216 non-gifted students. Kaufman Domains Creativity Scale-TR, which was adapted by Şahin (2015b, 2016) into Turkish used data collection instrument. The results of the analysis show that significant differences were obtained among the groups of scholarly, mechanic/ scientific, performance, self/ everyday and art creativities. The findings of the study indicate that the chess-playing is effective in developing creative thinking skills to gifted and non-gifted students. ÖZET Santranç oyunu kompleks kuralları olan üst düzey düşünme becerileri gerektiren bir oyundur. Bu çalışmanın genel amacı, üstün zekalı olan ve üstün zekalı olmayan lise öğrencilerinin alana özgü yaratıcılıkları üzerinde satrancın etkisinin incelenmesidir. Çalışma, 260'sı üstün zekalı ve 216'sı ortalama zeka düzeyinde olmak üzere toplam 476 öğrenciden dönen veriler ile sürdürülmüştür. Veri toplama aracı olarak Şahin (2015b, 2016) tarafından Türkçeye uyarlanmış olan Kaufman Alanları Yaratıcılık Ölçeği Türkçe Versiyonu kullanılmıştır. Analiz sonuçları akademik, mekanik/bilimsel, performans, öz/günlük ve sanatsal yaratıcılıktan alanlarından oluşan alana özgü yaratıcılık puanlarda gruplar arasında anlamlı farklılıklar olduğuna işaret etmektedir. Çalışma bulguları, satranç oynamanın üstün zekalı olan öğrenciler ile ortalama düzeyde zekaya sahip olan öğrencilerin yaratıcı düşünme becerilerinin geliştirilmesinde etkili olduğuna işaret etmektedir.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Karaelmas Journal of Educational Sciences 5 (2017) 263-272
International Refereed Journal
Karaelmas Journal of Educational Sciences
Journal Homepage: ebd.beun.edu.tr
Chess: A game of Kings or the King of Games? A Study of Creativity
in Gifted and Non-Gifted Students
1
Feyzullah ŞAHİN
2
Received: 26 July 2017, Accepted: 22 November 2017
ABSTRACT
Chess is a game that requires higher order cognitive skills because of its complicated rules. The main goal of this study was to
analyse the effect of chess on domain-specific creativities among gifted and non-gifted high-school students. The study was
conducted using data of 476 students, including 260 gifted students and 216 non-gifted students. Kaufman Domains Creativity
Scale-TR, which was adapted by Şahin (2015b, 2016) into Turkish used data collection instrument. The results of the analysis
show that significant differences were obtained among the groups of scholarly, mechanic/ scientific, performance, self/
everyday and art creativities. The findings of the study indicate that the chess-playing is effective in developing creative
thinking skills to gifted and non-gifted students.
Keywords: Chess, Chess Playing, Creativity Domain, Gifted.
1
This research is supported by Düzce University Research Fund Project Number: DÜBAP.2014.10.04.271
2
Assist.Prof.Dr., Duzce University, Faculty of Education, feyzullahsahin@duzce.edu.tr
Şahin, F. Karaelmas Journal of Educational Sciences 5 (2017) 263-272 264
Satranç: Kralların Oyunu mu? Oyunların Kralı mı? Üstün Zekalı
Olan Öğrenciler ile Üstün Zekalı Olmayan Öğrencilerin Yaratıcılığı
Üzerine Bir Çalışma
1
Feyzullah ŞAHİN
2
Başvuru Tarihi: 26 Temmuz 2017, Kabul Tarihi: 22 Kasım 2017
ÖZET
Santranç oyunu kompleks kuralları olan üst düzey düşünme becerileri gerektiren bir oyundur. Bu çalışmanın genel amacı,
üstün zekalı olan ve üstün zekalı olmayan lise öğrencilerinin alana özgü yaratıcılıkları üzerinde satrancın etkisinin
incelenmesidir. Çalışma, 260’sı üstün zekalı ve 216’sı ortalama zeka düzeyinde olmak üzere toplam 476 öğrenciden dönen
veriler ile sürdürülmüştür. Veri toplama aracı olarak Şahin (2015b, 2016) tarafından Türkçeye uyarlanmış olan Kaufman
Alanları Yaratıcılık Ölçeği Türkçe Versiyonu kullanılmıştır. Analiz sonuçları akademik, mekanik/bilimsel, performans,
öz/günlük ve sanatsal yaratıcılıktan alanlarından oluşan alana özgü yaratıcılık puanlarda gruplar arasında anlamlı farklılıklar
olduğuna işaret etmektedir. Çalışma bulguları, satranç oynamanın üstün zekalı olan öğrenciler ile ortalama düzeyde zekaya
sahip olan öğrencilerin yaratıcı düşünme becerilerinin geliştirilmesinde etkili olduğuna işaret etmektedir.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Satranç, Satranç Oyuncusu, Yaratıcılık Alanları, Üstün Zeka.
1. Introduction
Gifted students differentiate cognitively from their peers in terms of their perceptional speed, learning
depth and interests (Sak, 2010). Gifted students are more prepared to develop skills such as advanced
thinking processes, including creative thinking, compared to their non-gifted peers. Chess may be
considered an intellectual game with complex rules and one of the most significant contributions to a
school’s curriculum for gifted students.
Historically, chess has been the primary domain for psychological studies of human expertise. In 1893,
Alfred Binet studied the memory of blindfolded chess players. Sigmund Freud was the first psychoanalyst
to discuss the game of chess when, in 1913, he noted that the steps required to master chess were akin to
learning psychoanalytic techniques (Ferguson, 1995).
1.1. Chess: Intelligence
Chess requires memory skills for many structures particular to the game that may help the player
index appropriate moves, formulate action plans and search through the chess problem space in an
effective manner. From a theoretical aspect, intelligence could affect skill acquisition in numerous ways.
When the same amount of practice is considered, individuals with high intelligence may be able to obtain
the accumulation of chess-related structures faster than those with less intelligence. They may also be
able to search the problem space faster and more precisely. If this were so, more intelligent individuals
might be expected to develop into better players (Waters, Goben & Leyden, 2002).
In studies in which the intelligence components of chess players were analysed, different results were
obtained for children and adults. Horgan and Morgan (1990) conducted a study on children and found a
correlation of r= .34 between International Performance Ranking System (ELO) and intelligence, and the
intelligence scores of those children were higher than average children. In a study conducted on 4226
second-grade students in Venezuela, researchers tested whether chess can be used to develop the
intelligence of children as measured by the Wechsler intelligence scale for children (WISC). Participants
showed an increase in IQ after less than a year of studying chess. Most students showed a significant gain
after a minimum of 4.5 months (Ferguson, 1995).
1
Bu araştırma Düzce Üniversitesi Bilimsel Araştırma Projeleri Destek Programı kapsamında desteklenmiştir. Proje Numarası:
DÜBAP.2014.10.04.271
2
Yrd.Doç.Dr., Duzce Üniversitesi, Eğitim Fakültesi, feyzullahsahin@duzce.edu.tr
Şahin, F. Karaelmas Journal of Educational Sciences 5 (2017) 263-272 265
Frydman and Lynn (1992) concluded that high-level chess playing requires a good general intelligence
and strong visuo-spatial abilities. In their study, which they conducted with 57 children who played chess
for four years (age mean=11 years), it was founded that intelligence was among the predictors of chess-
playing strength but they found that practising was more important than intelligence. On the other hand,
when an elite sub-sample of 23 children was tested, it turned out that intelligence was not a significant
factor in chess skill (Bilalic, McLeod & Gobet, 2007a).
Petrowski and Rudik (1927, cited in Grabner, Stern & Neubauer, 2007) performed one of the
pioneering studies conducted on adults. They found no evidence between a highly talented group and a
control group of adult non-chess players in terms of concentration ability, visuo-spatial memory and
general intelligence.
Frank (1978) conducted a study during 1973-1974 in Zaire. The treatment group results indicated
that, compared to the control group, there was a significant correlation between the ability to play chess
well and high levels of spatial, numerical, administrative-directional and paperwork abilities, as well as
verbal aptitudes. Moreover, learning chess had a positive influence on the development of both numerical
and verbal aptitudes.
Unterrainer, Kaller, Halsband and Rahm (2006) conducted a study on 25 chess players (12502100
ELO) and 25 non-chess players. The study revealed better overall performance in the chess players with
increasing differences in more complex planning problems. However, the chess players did not have
better fluid intelligence (Raven matrices), memory capacity (digit span) or visuo-spatial working memory
than the non-players. In a study by Gliga and Flesner (2014) conducted on 20 (10 control, 10 treatment)
novice primary-school students, the effectiveness of chess training for 10 hours on various areas
(memory, school performance, etc.) was analysed. In the chess contest held after the training, no effects
on IQ level were found.
In another study, Doll and Mayr (1987, cited in Grabner, 2014) investigated adult expert chess players’
general intellectual abilities. Twenty-seven chess experts (22202425 ELO) were screened using two
intelligence tests. Compared with the control group, the chess players had significantly higher IQs. The
general intelligence scores of the Berlin intelligence structure test and Cattel’s culture fair intelligence
test were also significantly higher for the chess experts. However, no significant correlation between the
scores in the intelligence tests and the ELO ratings were found. In a study by Grabner Neubauer and Stern
(2006) and Unterrainer, Kaller, Leonhart and Rahm (2011), a significant association between chess rating
and intelligence could not be established.
Grabner (2014) tested 90 tournament players. A correlation of r=.35, .38 and .46, respectively, was
determined for the ELO ratings of the participants and their general, verbal and numerical intelligence
within the scope of fluid intelligence. No significant correlation was found with figural intelligence. A
significant correlation of r=.41, .24, .45 and .30 was determined for participants’ general, verbal,
numerical and figural knowledge within crystallised intelligence.
1.2. Chess: Creativity
It can theoretically be said that the two players in a chess game activate cognitive skills within
divergent thinking skills, such as fluency, flexibility and originality, as well as creative supporting
personality traits, such as overcoming obstacles, risk taking, self-motivation, persistence, and tolerating
unexpected occasions and unconventional thinking (e.g Sak, 2009).
The number of studies that have researched the creative thinking abilities of chess players is rather
limited. The first was conducted between 1979 and 1982 by Ferguson (1995). The researcher classified
the intellectually gifted students with an IQ of 130 or above into three groups: chess treatment, computer
treatment and all non-chess treatment combined (n=15 each). Each group met once a week for 32 weeks
and most groups spent a total of 60-64 hours pursuing their preferred activity. As a result of the Torrance
tests of creative thinking (TTCT), it was determined that the fluency, flexibility and originality scores
differentiated on behalf of the chess treatment group. The most significant growth was in originality.
Relationships between personality traits supporting creativity and chess-playing strength have been
analysed in two different studies. Grabner, Stern and Neubauer (2007) studied 90 adults and the
relationship between personality profile (NEOFFI) and ELO (ELO scores from 1311 to 2387). As a result,
Şahin, F. Karaelmas Journal of Educational Sciences 5 (2017) 263-272 266
no significant relationship was found in any dimensions including neuroticism, extraversion, openness to
experience, agreeableness and conscientiousness. Bilalic, McLeod and Gobet (2007b) investigated
personality profiles using the “Big five” model of 219 young children who played chess and 50 of their
peers who did not. As a result of the study, no significant relationship was found between the two groups
in terms of extraversion/energy, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional instability and
intellect/openness. However, a sub-sample of 25 elite players had significantly higher scores for
intellect/openness than their weaker chess-playing peers. Furthermore, children who scored higher on
intellect/openness and energy/extraversion were more likely to play chess while children who scored
higher on agreeableness were less likely to be attracted to chess.
In the research conducted on different groups other than chess players, positive correlation was found
among divergent thinking, openness (Furnham, Batey, Anand, & Manfield, 2008; Furnham & Bachtiar,
2008; SanchezRuiz, HernandezTorrano, PerezGonzalez, Batey, & Furnham, 2011; Soldz & Vaillant,
1999) and extraversion (Batey, ChamorroPremuzic, & Furnham, 2009; Furnham, Batey, Anand, &
Manfield, 2008; Furnham & Bachtiar, 2008); non-significant correlation between agreeableness (Sanchez-
Ruiz et al., 2011; Soldz & Vaillant, 1999) and negative relationships was also determined (Furnham &
Bachtiar, 2008).
Studies by Avni, Kipper and Fox (1987) and Kelly (1985) present indirect evidence for the relationship
between creative personality traits and chess-playing strength. Avni et al. (1987) studied three groups of
chess players with a) highly-competitive skills, b) moderately-competitive skills and c) a group of non-
players (n=20 each), measured using the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. The results
demonstrated that chess players achieved higher levels than non-players in terms of orderliness and
unconventional thinking. In addition, the highly-competitive players were unlike the non-players as they
were significantly more suspicious. In Kelly (1985), a study consisting of 734 people (1500-2200 ELO),
the participants were classified into two groups: initial master and average from the point of playing
strength. The abridged version of the MyersBriggs type indicator was used as the data-collecting
instrument. Stronger players tended to be more intuitive than weaker players.
1.3. Theoretical framework
Gardner (1983) states that cognition function is composed of several factors and each factor functions
according to its own set of rules. He notes that exceptional responses were related to specific domains
that required different kinds of skills and specific types of knowledge. On the other hand, different
suggestions have been made in various studies related to the principles that should be formed according
to creativity domains (Feist, 2004) or the number of existing domains (e.g. Carson, Peterson & Higgins,
2005; Oral, Kaufman, & Agars, 2007).
Kaufman (2012) has suggested the theoretical grounding of creativity domains, such as scholarly,
mechanical/ scientific, performance, self/ everyday and art. Scholarly creativity would reflect Ivcevic and
Mayer’s (2009) intellectual creativity, Feist’s (2004) linguistics and Gardner’s (1999) linguistic
intelligence. Mechanical/ scientific creativity would cover Gardner’s (1999) logical-mathematical and
naturalistic intelligences, Ivcevic and Mayer’s (2009) intellectual creativity and Carson, Peterson and
Higgins’s (2005) science factor. Performance would include Gardner’s (1999) bodily kinesthetic and
musical intelligence, Ivcevic and Mayer’s (2009) performative arts and Feist’s (2004) music.
Self/everyday creativity would cover Gardner’s (1999) ideas about interpersonal and intrapersonal
intelligence and Ivcevic and Mayer’s (2009) creative lifestyle. Theoretical frameworks for art creativity
would be grounded in Gardner’s (1999) spatial intelligence, Carson et al.’s art factor and Feist’s (2004)
art.
1.4. Present study
The results of the studies, in which the relationships between chess and intelligence are inconsistent
and scattered in terms of both methodology and the dimensions of cognitive characteristics, have been
analysed. Some of the studies are limited. Other than the study in Venezuela, the number of participants
varied between 15 and 90 in the studies where relationships between chess-intelligence and chess-
creativity were analysed (Ferguson, 1995). The generalisability of the results of that study is low. Thus,
studies that include larger samples are required. Moreover, the process of peer-review was ignored in the
studies of Frank (1978) and Ferguson (1995). This study main goals answers to the following question:
Şahin, F. Karaelmas Journal of Educational Sciences 5 (2017) 263-272 267
Is there a significant difference in creativity domains (scholarly, mechanic/ scientific,
performance, self/ everyday and art) in different groups of students (gifted player, gifted non-
player, non-gifted player and non-gifted non-player).
2. Method
2.1. Participants
The study was conducted using data obtained from a total of 476 students at a high school that gifted
(highly-intelligent) students attended and another high school that non-gifted students attended during
2014-2015. Gifted students acquire the right to enroll in the high school as long as they have a score of +2
Sd or higher from at least one WISC-R IV verbal, performance or index score. Of the students, 260
(54.62%) were gifted. Among these, 52 (10.92%) were female, while 81 (17.02%) were male. Among
those who did not know how to play chess, 79 (16.60%) were female, while 48 (10.08%) were male. Of
the students, 216 (45.38%) were not gifted. Among those students who knew how to play chess, 40
(8.40%) were female, while 55 (11.55%) were male. Among the students who did not know how to play
chess, 74 (15.55%) were female, while 47 (9.87%) were male.
2.2. Measures
2.2.1 Kaufman Domains of Creativity Scale (KDOCSTR)
The scale, developed by Kaufman (2012), was adapted for use in Turkish culture by Şahin (2015b,
2016). As a result of the adaptation, a structure consisting of five factors and 42 items emerged. The fit
indices of the model were determined to be good values (χ2/df= 1.94, GFI= .78, CFI= .93, RMSEA= .06, and
SRMR= .07). The internal consistency reliability coefficients of the KDOCS-TR form were determined as
follows: for the scholarly creativity: .87; for the mechanical/scientific: .84; for the performance: .86; for
the self/everyday: .77; for the artistics: .83; and for the total: .90. The validation study included ttests
among various groups (between the sub and upper segments of 27%) and was found to be significant
(p<.01). In order to determine the domain-specific creativity levels of the students, the sub-dimensions of
the scale were independently used. In this study, the Cronbach alpha internal consistency coefficient of
the KDOCS-TR subdimensions was between .76 and .86 (Table 1).
2.2.2 Knowledge form
In order to determine the length of time partipiants had spent playing chess, the researcher prepared a
form. While collecting data, those groups (gifted player, gifted non-player, non-gifted player and non-
gifted non-player) were clasified as “chess players” since 12 students stated they had been playing chess
for two to three years, while other students stated a longer period.
Among the students who knew how to play chess, those with a novice level were chosen. Among the
chess players with a chess ranking score from the Turkish Chess Federation (UKD), those with a score
over 1100 were excluded from the study. Considering the exercise period, which is one of the most
important factors that determines performance in chess (e.g., Campitelli & Gobet, 2008; Charnes, Tuffiash,
Krampe, Reingold & Vasyukova, 2005), those who had played approximately two to three hours a week
for the last two years were included in the study. In other words, the study group was formed with
students who played between 102 and 156 hours of chess within the last two years.
3. Results
3.1. Creativity scores of young chess players: Descriptive statistics
Minimum and maximum values, mean, standard deviation and Cronbach’s alpha internal consistency
coefficients for all variables in this study are presented in Table 1. The values for the creativity domain
arithmetic mean score varied between 3.00 and 3.61.
Şahin, F. Karaelmas Journal of Educational Sciences 5 (2017) 263-272 268
Table 1
Descriptive statistics, and reliability values.
Min.
Max.
M
SD
α
Scholarly
9.00
45.00
32.51
5.68
3.61
.76
Mechanical/ scientific
110
55.00
36.23
8.15
3.29
.86
Performance
9.00
45.00
27.73
8.66
3.08
.86
Self/ everyday
7.00
35.00
21.00
6.52
3.00
.84
Art
5.00
25.00
15.68
5.29
3.14
.84
KDOCS-TR total
410
204.00
133.15
23.99
3.25
.92
N= 476.
3.2. Analysis of group scores
The normalcy of the data set was analysed before the analysis was conducted. The skewness and
kurtosis values were not greater than |2.0|. The analysis of the scores of students classified into four
groupsgifted player, gifted non-player, non-gifted player and non-gifted non-playeris provided in
Table 2. Depending on the giftedness of the participants and chess-playing, both scholarly and
performance scores similarly differentiated (F=2.699 and 9.469, p<.05). The results of the LSD post-hoc
analysis indicated that there were significant differences among the groups (p<.05). The gap scores
weighed against non-gifted non-players.
Table 2
Creativity scores of gifted and non-gifted students according to their chess-playing status.
Groups
N
D
F
p***
Significance
Scholary*
Nongifted nonplayer1
121
31.25
.46
2.699
04
12, 13,
14
Nongifted player2
95
32.93
4.65
Gifted nonplayer3
127
32.82
5.95
Gifted player4
133
33.06
6.17
Mechanic/
scientific*
Nongifted nonplayer
121
33.79
7.62
8.057
00
13, 14,
24, 34
Nongifted player
95
34.99
.37
Gifted nonplayer
127
37.56
.23
Gifted player
133
38.08
.44
Performance *
Nongifted nonplayer
121
24.51
.28
9.469
00
12, 13,
14
Nongifted player
95
27.66
.03
Gifted nonplayer
127
30.04
.03
Gifted player
133
28.52
.49
Self/ everyday**
Nongifted nonplayer
121
19.09
.64
9.587
00
12, 14,
34
Nongifted player
95
21.42
.14
Gifted nonplayer
127
20.24
.39
Gifted player
133
23.17
7.01
Art*
Nongifted nonplayer
121
13.89
.80
10.721
00
13, 14,
Nongifted player
95
14.97
5.26
Gifted nonplayer
127
17.40
5.19
Gifted player
133
16.19
5.27
*LSD, **Tamhane’s T2, ***p< .05, 1=Nongifted nonplayer, 2=Nongifted player, 3=Gifted nonplayer, 4=Gifted
player.
Art and mechanical/ scientific scores also significantly differentiated (F=10.721 and 8.057, p<.05).
When the results of the LSD were dyadically compared to the scores of gifted non-players and non-gifted
non-players, and gifted players and non-gifted non-players, significant differences were found between
them (p<.05). The gap scores again weighed against non-gifted non-players. Additionally, a significant
difference was found for gifted players when the scores of mechanical/ scientific gifted player and non-
gifted player, and gifted player and gifted non-player, were compared (p<.05). Self/ everyday creativity
scores also differentiated significantly (F=9.587, p<.05). As a result of Tamhane’s T2 post-hoc analysis, a
significant difference was found against non-players when gifted players and non-gifted non-players, and
gifted non-players and non-gifted non-players, were compared (p<.05).
Şahin, F. Karaelmas Journal of Educational Sciences 5 (2017) 263-272 269
4. Discussion and Conclusion
This study aimed to analyse the effects of the status of playing chess on the domain-specific creativity
skills of gifted and non-gifted students. The students were classified into four different groups: gifted
player; gifted non-player; non-gifted player; and non-gifted non-player). In the study, five different
creativity domains (scholarly, mechanical/ scientific, performance, self/ everyday and art) were
calculated.
All subscale scores except self/ everyday for gifted players were more significant and higher than for
non-gifted non-players. This result indicates that giftedness and/or the status of playing chess are
effective on high levels of creativity scores. Another common result was that gifted non-players had more
significant and higher scores than non-gifted non-players. This finding highlights that giftedness is solely
effective on the differentiation of creativity scores. The descriptive statistics without the self/ everyday
creativity score also supported this finding (Table 2). However, there have been inconsistent results in a
number of studies that have analysed the relationship between intelligence and creativity. In some
studies, the given relationship is supported (Plucker, 2010; Silvia, 2008; Solomon, 1967; Şahin, 2014,
2015a), while others have reported contrary results (Furnham, Zhang, & ChamorroPremuzic, 2006;
Ogurlu, 2014; Richmond, 1966; SanchezRuiz, et al., 2011; Yoon, 2005). Those findings are parallel to the
findings of the study employing such relationships.
When the scholarly, performance, self/everyday and KDOCS-TR total scores were considered, the
scores of non-gifted players differentiated from their non-player peers. The analysis related to the
mechanical/ scientific and self/ everyday creativity scores indicated that the scores of gifted players were
higher than their non-player peers. Moreover, the descriptive statistics without the art and performance
scores also supported this finding (Table 2). Those findings are consistent with the results reported by
Ferguson (1995), which state that chess provided an increase in participants’ creative thinking skills.
The analysis of the mechanical/scientific creativity score showed that the scores of gifted players were
higher than non-gifted players. This illustrates that gifted students used applied cognitive processes while
playing chess more effectively than their non-gifted peers. Those findings are parallel with the studies of
Horgan and Morgan (1990), Frank (1978) and Doll and Mayer (1987, as cited in Grabner, 2014).
When the self/everyday creativity scores of gifted non-players and non-gifted non-players were
compared, no significant difference was determined between the scores. When theoretically analysed, it
can be noted that Gardner’s (1999) work on interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligence was an
inspiration to Kaufman (2012) as he developed the concept of self/everyday creativity. According to
Petrides (2011), the roots of emotional intelligence date back to Gardner’s (1999) work on interpersonal
and intrapersonal intelligence. The findings of the studies which analysed the relationship between
emotional intelligence and general intelligence indirectly support the findings of this study. In studies by
Sing and Sharma (2012) and Haro and Castejon (2014), no relationship was observed between the two
variants. In studies by Derksen, Kramer and Katzko (2002) and Şahin and et al. (2015), a slight positive
and significant relationship was determined. In the study of Wolfradtz, Felfe and Koster (2001), a non-
significant negative relationship was determined (r =.17).
The results obtained from this study support the research findings of Sing and Sharma (2012) and
Haro and Castejon (2014). It was reported in another study that no significant relationship exists
between self/everyday creativity and WISCR IV verbal, performance and index scores (Şahin et al.,
2015). This result is parallel to the findings of this study. Self/everday creativity seems independent from
general intelligence.
This study has several limits. The first limitation is that the period of the last two years was used for
evaluating the periods of chess play among the students. The scores of the students who had been playing
chess for longer periods than their peers may differ. In order to avoid such limits, the students with a UKD
score over 1100 were not included in the study and the study group was formed with novice chess
players. In another study, the creativity levels of novice or expert chess players could be compared. The
other limitation, both the creativity measure and the chess playing status are derived from self-report.
This is a notable limitation. Because, selfrated method has some problems, such as inattentively filling
the responses by its very nature (Silvia, Wigert, ReiterPalmon & Kaufman, 2012) or high/ low scores
obtained from the evaluation instrument parallel to the responses of the teachers (Beghetto, 2006). But,
the assessment of creativity through a selfrated method is extremely informative on the occasions
Şahin, F. Karaelmas Journal of Educational Sciences 5 (2017) 263-272 270
where no information is available on the levels of the participants (Kaufman, Evans, & Baer, 2010; Şahin
& Şahin, 2012, 2013). The results of the analysis contributed to chess-playing supports several creative
cognitive processes. Thus, chess should be a part of the basic curriculum in order to develop creativity in
educational institutions.
References
Avni, A., Kipper, D. A., & Fox, S. (1987). Personality and leisure activities: An illustration with chess players.
Personality and Individual Differences, 8(5), 715719.
Batey, M., ChamorroPremuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2009). Intelligence and personality as predictors of divergent
thinking: The role of general, fluid and crystallised intelligence. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 4(1), 6069,
Doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2009.01.002
Beghetto, R. A. (2006). Creative selfefficacy: Correlates in middle and secondary students. Creativity Research
Journal, 18, 447−457, Doi: 10.1207/s15326934crj1804_4
Bilalic, M., McLeod, P., & Gobet, F. (2007a). Does chess need intelligence? A study with young chess players.
Intelligence, 35, 457470, Doi:10.1016/j.intell.2006.09.005
Bilalic, M., McLeod, P., & Gobet, F. (2007b). Personality profiles of young chess players. Personality and Individual
Differences, 42, 901910, Doi:10.1016/j.paid.2006.08.025
Carson, S., Peterson, J. B., & Higgins, D. M. (2005). Reliability, validity, and factor structure of the creative
achievement questionnaire. Creativity Research Journal, 17(1), 3750, Doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1701_4
Campitelli, G., & Gobet, F. (2008). The role of practice in chess: A longitudinal study. Learning and Individual
Differences, 18(4), 446458, Doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2007.11.006
Charness, N., Tuffiash, M., Krampe, R., Reingold, E., & Vasyukova, E. (2008). The role of deliberate practice in chess
expertise. Applied Cognitive Psycholgy, 19, 151165, Doi: 10.1002/acp.1106
Derksen, J., Kramer, I., & Katzko, M. (2002). Does a selfreport measure for emotional intelligence assess something
different than general intelligence? Personality and Individual Differences, 32(1), 3748,
Doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.08.014
Feist, G. J. (2004). The evolved fluid specificity of human creative talent. R. J. Sternberg, E. L. Grigorenko, & J. L.
Singer (Eds.), Creativity: From potential to realization (pp. 5782). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Ferguson, R. (1995). Chess in education research summary, paper presented at the Chess in Education a Wise Move
Conference at the Borough of Manhattan Community College. 30.06.2014, Retrieved from
http://www.gardinerchess.com/publications/ciers.pdf.
Frank, A. (1978). Chess and aptidute. American Chess Foundation.
Frydman, M., & Lynn, R. (1992). The general intelligence and spatial abilities of gifted young Belgian chess players.
British Journal of Psychology, 83, 233235.
Furnham, A., & Bachtiar, V. (2008). Personality and intelligence as predictors of creativity. Personality and Individual
Differences, 45, 613617, Doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.06.023
Furnham, A., Batey, M., Anand, K., & Manfield, J. (2008). Personality, hypomania, intelligence and creativity.
Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 10601069, Doi:10.1016/J.Paid.2007.10.035
Furnham, A., Zhang, J., & ChamorroPremuzic, T. (2006). The relationship between psychometric and selfestimated
intelligence, creativity, personality, and academic achievement. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 10,
251267.
Gliga, F., & Flesner, P. I. (2014). Cognitive benefits of chess training in novice children. ProcediaSocial and
Behavioral Sciences, 116, 962967.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligence for the 21st century. New York: Basic Books.
Grabner, R. H. (2014). The role of intelligence for performance in the prototypical expertise domain of chess.
Intelligence, 45, 2633, Doi:10.1016/j.intell.2013.07.023
Grabner, R. H., Neubauer, A. C., & Stern, E. (2006). Superior performance and neural efficiency: The impact of
intelligence and expertise. Brain Research Bulletin, 69, 422−439.
Grabner, R. H., Stern, E., & Neubauer, A. C. (2007). Individual differences in chess expertise: A psychometric
investigation. Acta Psychologica, 124(3), 398420, Doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2006.07.008
Haro, J. M., & Castejon, J. L. (2014). Perceived emotional intelligence, general intelligence and early professional
success: Predictive and incremental validity. Anales de Psicología, (30)2, 490498.
Horgan, D. D., & Morgan, D. (1990). Chess expertise in children. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 4(2), 109128,
Doi: 10.1002/acp.2350040204
Ivcevic, Z., & Mayer, J. D. (2009). Mapping dimensions of creativity in the lifespace. Creativity Research Journal,
21(23), 152165, Doi:10.1080/10400410902855259
Şahin, F. Karaelmas Journal of Educational Sciences 5 (2017) 263-272 271
Kaufman, J. C. (2012). Counting the muses: Development of the Kaufman Domains Of Creativity Scale (KDOCS).
Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 6(4), 298308, Doi: 10.1037/a0029751.
Kaufman, J. C., Evans, M., & Baer, J. (2010). The American idol effect: Are students good judges of their creativity
across domains? Empirical Studies of the Arts, 28(1) 317, Doi: 10.2190/EM.28.1.b
Kelly, E. J. (1985). The personality of chess players. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 282284.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1997). Conceptions and correlates of openness to experience. R. Hogan, J. A. Johnson, &
S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality Psychology (pp. 826848). New York: Academic Press.
Ogurlu, Ü. (2014). The relationship between intelligence and creativity in children (Çocuklarda zeka ve yaratıcılık
ilişkisi). Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 11(27), 337348.
Oral, G., Kaufman, J. C., & Agars, M. D. (2007). Examining creativity in Turkey: Do Western findings apply? High
Ability Studies, 18(2), 235−246, Doi: 10.1080/13598130701709590
Petrides, K. V. (2011). Ability and trait emotional intelligence. ChamorroPremuzic, T., Furnham, A., & von Stumm, S.
(Eds.), The blackwellwiley handbook of individual differences (p.656-678). New York: Wiley.
Plucker, J. A. (2010). Is the proof in the pudding? Reanalyses of Torrance's (1958 to present) longitudinal data.
Creativity Research Journal, 12(2), 103114, Doi: 10.1207/s15326934crj1202_3.
Richmond, B. O. (1966). Creativity in monozygotic and dyzygotic' twins. ERIC Number: ED109580, University of
Georgia.
SanchezRuiz, M. J., HernandezTorrano D., PerezGonzalez, J. C., Batey, M., & Petrides, K. V. (2011). The relationship
between trait emotional intelligence and creativity across subject domains. Motivation and Emotion, 35(4),
461473, Doi: 10.1007/s1103101192278
Sak, U. (2009). Gifted education programs (Üstün yetenekliler eğitim programları), Ankara: Maya.
Sak, U. (2010). Gifted students characteristics, identification and their education (Üstün zekâlılar–özellikleri
tanılanmaları eğitimleri), Ankara: Maya.
Silvia, P. L. (2008). Creativity and intelligence revisited: A latent variable analysis of Wallach and Kogan (1965).
Creativity Research Journal, 20(1), 3439, Doi: 10.1080/10400410701841807
Silvia, P. J., Wigert, B., ReiterPalmon, R., & Kaufman, J. C. (2012). Assessing creativity with selfreport scales: A
review and empirical evaluation. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 6(1), 19−34.
Singh, Y., & Sharma, R. (2012). Relationship between general intelligence, emotional intelligence, stress levels and
stress reactivity. Ann Neurosci, 19(3), 107111, Doi: 10.5214/ans.0972.7531.190304.
Soldz, S., & Vaillant, G. E. (1999). The big five personality traits and the life course: A 45 year longitudinal study.
Journal of Research in Personality, 33(2), 208−232.
Solomon, A. O. (1967). A comparative analysis of creative and intelligent behavior of elementary school children with
different socioeconomic backgrounds (Final Progress Report). ERIC Number: ED017022, The American
University.
Şahin, F. (2014). Yaratıcılık–zekâ ilişkisi: Yeni kanıtlar (Relationship of creativity and intelligence: New evidence).
Elementary Education Online, 13(3), 15161530, Doi: 10.17051/io.2014.02374.
Şahin, F. (2015a). A research on the relations between intelligence and creativity, and creativity style. Turkish
Journal of Giftedness and Education, 5(1), 220.
Şahin, F. (2015b, May 13-15). Kaufman Alanları Yaratıcılık Ölçeği’nin Türkçeye uyarlanması ve psikometrik
özelliklerinin incelenmesi (Adaptation of the Kaufman Domains of Creativity Scale into Turkish and
examination of its psychometric properties). Presented at the International Congress on Education for the Future
Congre: Issues and Challenges, Ankara.
Şahin, F. (2016). Kaufman Alanları Yaratıcılılık Ölçeği’nin rkçeye uyarlanması ve psikometrik özelliklerinin
incelenmesi (Adaptation of the Kaufman Domains of Creativity Scale into Turkish and examination of its
psychometric properties). Elementary Education Online, 15(3), 855-867,
http://dx.doi.org/10.17051/io.2016.70479.
Şahin, F., Esin, Ö., & Deniz, M. E. (2015). The predictive level of emotional intelligence for the domainspecific
creativity: A study on gifted students. Education & Science, 41(183),181-197, Doi: 10.15390/EB.2016.4576
Şahin, F., & Şahin, D. (2012). Engelli bireylerle çalışan özel eğitim öğretmenlerinin tükenmişlik düzeyinin
belirlenmesi, Öğretmen Eğitimi ve Eğitimcileri Dergisi, 2(1), 275294.
Şahin, F., & Şahin, D. (2013). Bilim ve sanat merkezinde çalışan öğretmenlerin tükenmişlik düzeyi. Üstün
Yeteneklilerin Eğitimi Araştırmaları Dergisi, 1(2), 5166.
Unterrainer, J. M., Kaller, C. P., Halsband, U., & Rahm, B. (2006). Planning abilities and chess: a comparison of chess
and nonchess players on the tower of london task. British Journal of Psychology, 97, 299311.
Unterrainer, J.M., Kaller, C. P., Leonhart, R., & Rahm, B. (2011). Revising superior planning performance in chess
players: the impact of time restriction and motivation aspects. The American Journal of Psychology, 124(2),
213225. Dx.doi.org/10.5406/amerjpsyc.124.2.0213
Waters, A. J., Gobet, F., & Leyden, G. (2002). Visuospatial abilities in chess players. British Journal of Psychology,
93(4), 557565, Doi: 10.1348/000712602761381402
Şahin, F. Karaelmas Journal of Educational Sciences 5 (2017) 263-272 272
Wolfradt, U., Felfe, J., & Koster, T. (2002). Selfperceived emotional intelligence and creative personality.
Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 21(4), 293309.
Yoon, S. (2005). Comparing the intelligence and creativity scores of Asian American gifted students with Caucasian
gifted students (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Purdue University.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
Full-text available
SUMMARY Purpose and Significance: In the Turkish literature, there is a few instrument used in the measurement of creative thinking skills. The general objective of this study is to adapt the Kaufman Domains of Creativity Scale (KDCS) which was developed by Kaufman (2012) into Turkish and the group of gifted students using the point of view of creativity specific to the domain. Methodology: In the adaptation study, three different activities were conducted. In the study I, the structural validity of the KDCS was analyzed through Explanatory Factor Analysis (EFA). In the study II; the EFA was applied to the data set for the first thing then the Confirmative Factor Analysis (CFA) was applied in order to test the emerging structure. The data obtained from 241 students of one school in the first study, and that of 254 students from two different schools in the second study. Results: Study I: As a result of EFA, the data was found convenient for factor analysis (KMO value, .864; Barlett Sphericty, χ²= 5298.891, p< .01). As a result of the repeated analysis, 43 of the items in the original scale which contains fifty items and five sub–factors were determined to function and all the other items except one item were determined under the sub–factors in the original scale. The Cronbach α internal coefficient of consistence ranges between .87 and .78. The general of the scale is .92. Study II: As a result of EFA, the data was found convenient for factor analysis (KMO value, .828; Barlett Sphericty, χ²= 5825.317, p< .01). As a result of the repeated EFA, a structure consisting 42 items and five factors was emerged. All the other items except the twenty eighth items were found under the sub–factors in the original scale. In order to test the structures emerging with EFA, CFA was applied to the data set. The result of EFA was determined to overlap CFA. When the path coefficients (R2) of the items are analyzed, the twenty–eighth model provided less contribution than 1%. Then, this item was excluded and the analysis was repeated. Thereupon, this item was excluded and the analysis was repeated. As a result of this, a structure which has five sub–factors consisting of 41 items and which conforms to the locations of the items in the original scale was established. While examining the Good fit index, the criteria suggested by Kline (2011) was considered. The aforementioned indexes were determined as χ²765= 1480.75 (p< .01), χ²/Sd= 1.936, RMSEA=.06, SRMR= .074, GFI= .78 and CFI= .93, respectively. The correlations between five sub–factors and the scale was positively and significantly determined to vary between .13 and .98. The reliability values of the scale were analyzed through internal consistency coefficient. The Cronbach α coefficient of the sub–factors ranges between .87 and .77. The general value of the scale is .90. The distinguishing validity of the items of the scale was analyzed through the item analysis method which is based on the difference between the averages of sub–layer and parent–layer. As a result of this, a significant difference was determined between the scores of sub–layer and parent–layer (t(69) =–62.277, –129.235, –74.747, –150.421, and –145.253, p< .01). Discussion and Conclusions: The validity and reliability analysis of KDCS–TR show that it is a valid and reliable measurement instrument. The scale which has been adapted to Turkish culture may be one of the instruments convenient to determine the creativity of the individuals in five different domains within the context of its sub–factors and the total of those sub–fields. Ultimately, the structure with five factors such as scholary creativity, mechanical/ science creativity, art performance creativity and Self/ everyday creativity and artistic creativity was confirmed. This instrument may be used by the researchers in order to determine the creativity levels of the students in the educational institutions and organize the activities related to this.
Article
Full-text available
The relationship between intelligence, emotional intelligence and creative thinking skills is complicated, multi-layered and multi-dimensional. The general purpose of this study is to determine the relationship between emotional intelligence of the students and their domain-specific creativity and the effect of emotional intelligence in predicting domain-specific creativity. Two different high schools were accepted as the study group and the data obtained from 239 gifted students was included into the study. In the study, the Creativity Tests for Kaufman Domains adapted by ahin (2015b, 2015c) and the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire-Short Form adapted by Deniz, Özer and I\+ýk (2013) were employed. The results of analysis revealed that the sociality which is one of the sub-dimensions of emotional intelligence was in relation with the entire creativity subdomain and self/everyday creativity subdimension was in relation with the entire emotional intelligence dimensions. Moreover, it was determined that sociability could predict academic creativity, artistic performance and self/everyday creativity whereas the other dimensions failed in doing it.
Article
Full-text available
Purpose and significance: In the international literature, there are contradictory results in the studies which investigated Threshold theory. In Turkey, a study which investigated Threshold theory hasn’t been found. General aim of this study is to examine the relationship between the creativity potentials of primary schools students (Grades 1-3) and general intelligence level. The study will be the first in the national literature, and also its findings will present new evidence on Threshold theory. Methods: The research was maintained in the descriptive pattern out of survey models. The study was conducted in a district of Istanbul. In the study, 16.839 students from 24 different primary schools in Istanbul were pre-assessed. An intelligence and creativity test was applied to 330 students who were considered to be gifted. WISC-R and Torrance Test of Creative Thinking were used to compile data. While analyzing the data, Pearson Correlation Analysis, Spearman-Brown Correlation Analysis, and Simple Regression Analysis were used. Result: 113 first-grade, 89 second-grade and 128 third-grade primary school students (130 females and 200 males) participated in the study. First, students were divided into three groups; average-mildly intelligence students, moderately gifted students and highly gifted students. Then, students’ intelligence scores were compared with total TTCT scores and fluency, originality, elaboration, abstractness of titles and resistance to premature closure sub-scores. It was found out that there was a significant medium positive relationship (r=.33, p<.05, R=.11) between the intelligence and elaboration scores, and significant low significant relationship (r=.24, p<.05, R=.06) between the intelligence and total TTCT scores of average-mildly intelligence students. It was also obtained that there was a significant low positive relationship (r=.21, p<.05, R=.04) between the intelligence and total TTCT scores of moderately gifted students. No significant relationship between other scores was detected (p>.05). It was reached that there wasn’t a significant relationship between the intelligence and total and sub-scores creativity (p>.05). In addition, a significant low positive relationship was found between the intelligence and creativity potential (r=.217, R=.047, p<.05). Approximately 5 percent of the total variance in general intelligence scores can be explained by intelligence. Discussion and Conclusion: The relationship between the general creativity scores and intelligence scores of average-mildly intelligence students (r=.24) is greater than the scores of moderately gifted students (r=.21). No significant relationship between the intelligence scores and creativity scores of highly gifted students was detected. Therefore, it was understood that general creativity scores didn’t increase collateral with the intelligence scores. While findings of some studies are parallel with findings of this study, findings of some others are in contrast with them. According to the researcher, there are two different reasons why contradictory results on Threshold theory have been obtained: a 120 IQ score is accepted as the threshold value and different evaluation instruments are used in the researches. Variance was found as 5 percent in the study, and it might be due to the structures measured in the intelligence and creativity tests were substantially different because many intelligence tests use convergent thinking whereas divergent thinking style is used while creative thinking is measured. As a conclusion, it can be said that the gains related to creativity, indispensable elements of instruction programs for gifted students, shouldn’t be restricted to individuals with this level of intelligence. These gains should be included in the peer-oriented programs to-be-developed. In addition, these gains should be prioritized in the programs to-be-developed for highly gifted students. Teachers should be qualified on this topic.
Article
Full-text available
The relationship between intelligence and creativity may be linked to the difficulties in defining and measuring methodology. Threshold theory is one of the theories which is used to explain the relationship between them. The aim of this study is to investigate the structures which the creative thinking ability of the gifted students and their intellectual structure is grouped and the structure which their creative thinking ability are alone. Data was gathered using Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-R and Torrance Thinking Creativity Test (TTCT). Confirmatory factor analyses were conducted with data from 278 gifted primary school students which contained the grade range of 1 to 3. The results indicate that the TTCT subscores consist of 2 factors called adaptive and innovative rather than a single factor. Besides, the results of the analyses provide support that creativity and intelligence are independent from each other. Key Words: intelligence, creativity, adaptive, innovative, gifted
Chapter
Full-text available
Publisher Summary This chapter discusses the openness which cannot be understood as the culture that is acquired through education or good breeding, not as intellect or any other cognitive ability. Openness must be viewed in both structural and motivational terms. Openness is seen in the breadth, depth, and permeability of consciousness and in the recurrent need to enlarge and examine experience. Openness also suggests a passive or uncritical receptivity, which is clearly inappropriate. Open people actively seek out experience and are apt to be particularly reflective and thoughtful about the ideas they encounter. A structural account of openness may be necessary, but it does not seem to be sufficient. Open people are not the passive recipients of a barrage of experiences they are unable to screen out; they actively seek out new and varied experiences. Openness involves motivation, needs for variety cognition sentience, and understanding. The heritability of openness might be explained by the heritability of intelligence. Psychologists have spent more time and effort studying intelligence, than any other trait by adopting the term “Intellect.” Personality psychologists could claim this vast literature as their own. Openness could be construed as intelligence itself or as the reflection of intelligence in the personality sphere.
Article
Full-text available
Background: Stressful life events and daily life stresses have both deleterious and cumulative effects on human body. In several studies, stress has been shown to affect various parameter of higher mental function like attention, concentration, learning and memory. Purpose: Present study was designed to explore the relationship among GI level, EI level, psychological stress levels and acute stress reactivity in young normal healthy subjects. Method: The study was conducted on thirty four healthy male student volunteers to study a) acute stress reactivity in subjects with varying levels of General Intelligence (GI) and Emotional Intelligence (EI) and b) correlation between GI, EI, acute stress and perceived stress. Baseline GI and EI and acute stress and perceived stress scores were measured by standard assessment scales. Using median value of GI and EI scores as cutoff values, subjects were categorized into four groups. Among different GI-EI groups, acute stress reactivity was similar but salivary Cortisol (especially post stressor level) and perceived stress level was a differentiating factor. Results: High level of EI was associated inversely with acute and chronic perceived stress level. Significant correlation was found between acute and chronic perceived stress levels. Level of general intelligence showed no relation to acute or chronic stress levels as well as acute stress reactivity. The differences in various groups of GI and EI had no effect on the baseline and post stress performance on Sternberg memory test and all the three conditions of Stroop test. Conclusion: In conclusion emotional intelligence as an attribute is better suited to handle day to day acute stress and chronic perceived stress.