Divergent thinking in arts and science students:<i>Contrary imaginations</i>at Keele revisited

Hartley, James; Greggs, Michael A.

doi:10.1080/03075079712331381161

Cited by 27 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We provided new specific evidence in the given area, when investigating EC in relationship to university students' field of study. These results may extend the findings by Hartley and Greggs (1997) which pointed to the significant thinking differences in arts and science students. Also Furnham and Crump (2013) provided further confirmation of differences between art and science students by applying a combination of intelligence tests.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Emotional Creativity and Real-Life Involvement in Different Types of Creative Leisure Activities

Trnka

Zahradník

Kuška

2016

Creativity Research Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The role of emotional creativity in practicing creative leisure activities and in the preference of college majors remains unknown. The present study aims to explore how emotional creativity measured by the Emotional Creativity Inventory (ECI; Averill, 1999) is interrelated with the real-life involvement in different types of specific creative leisure activities and with four categories of college majors. Data were collected from 251 university students, university graduates and young adults (156 women and 95 men). Art students and graduates scored significantly higher on the ECI than other majors. Humanities scored significantly higher than technical/economic majors. Five creative leisure activities were significantly correlated with the ECI, specifically, writing, painting, composing music, performing drama, and do-it-yourself home improvement. Overall creative capacities are related to various emotional variables, especially to stable emotional characteristics. The significance of stable emotional characteristics is recognizable in experimental creative tasks (Gutbezahl & Averill, 1996), divergent thinking tasks (Zenasni & Lubart, 2008) as well as in creative artistic performance (Agular-Vafaie & Runco, 2008). Ma (2009) classified three main areas of general creativity in his extensive meta-analysis: (a) creativity with less evaluation, including nonverbal and verbal; (b) creativity in problem solving, with more evaluation; and (c) emotional creativity. Emotional creativity (EC) is a pattern of cognitive abilities and personality traits related to originality and appropriateness in emotional experience (Ivcevic, Brackett, & Mayer, 2007). It involves the particularly effective application of an already existing emotion or, at a more complex level, the modification of a standard emotion to better meet the needs of the individual or group (Averill, 1999). Divergence from the ordinary emotional experience is a key feature of EC, because EC involves the ability to diverge from the common and generate novel emotional reactions (Ivcevic, Brackett, & Mayer, 2007). The theoretical conceptualization of EC within other related creativity constructs was previously provided by Gutbezahl and Averill (1996). The most common measurement of EC is a self-report questionnaire, the Emotional Creativity Inventory (ECI; Averill, 1999) developed by James R. Averill.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

“…The arts category included solely artistic fields of study (such as acting, film making, painting, music, dance, etc.) in accordance with the approach taken by Hartley and Greggs (1997).…”

Section: Field Of Studymentioning

confidence: 97%

Emotional Creativity and Real-Life Involvement in Different Types of Creative Leisure Activities

Trnka

Zahradník

Kuška

2016

Creativity Research Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As with the curriculum, types of tasks, ways of teaching, and criteria of assessing students' performance differ among major fields of study., Students of different fields would be expected to display different thinking processes and skills, and hence creativity associated with them. The differences in creativity between arts and science students, as measured by performance on divergent thinking tests, have been reported in a number of studies (Hartley & Greggs, 1997;Johnson, 1974;Lloyd-Bostock, 1979;Webster & Walker, 1981). The results suggest that students of English and arts, in general, outperform those of science and business in divergent thinking.…”

mentioning

confidence: 65%

Creativity of university students: What is the impact of field and year of study?

Cheung¹,

Rudowicz

Yue³

et al. 2003

Journal of Creative Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is a long‐lasting dispute about development of students' creativity in the course of their university education. Both the duration and major field of study may represent the educational effects. To address the issue, the present study collected data (N = 859) from a series of surveys of students in Hong Kong to clarify educational effects by controlling a number of background characteristics and prior scores on creativity. Apart from measuring self‐reported creative traits and creative products, it measured divergent thinking with five tasks to elicit students' creative ideas, which led to scores of fluency, flexibility, novelty, innovativeness, and originality. Results indicate the trend of monotonic decline in creativity with years of study at university and the general superiority of verbal creativity among students of humanities and social sciences, whereas business students had the highest scores on self‐assessed creative traits and products.

show abstract

“…A number of factors, which serve as covariates in the present study, appear to have an influence on creative expression. For example, research has found that students of science displayed lower creativity whereas students of arts showed higher creativity (Hartley & Greggs, 1997). However, this might be because of creative students' choosing certain courses (e.g., arts) (Eisenman, 1969).…”

Section: Enhancement Of Creativity Through a One-semester Course In Umentioning

confidence: 99%

Enhancement of Creativity through a One‐Semester Course in University

Cheung

Roskams

Fisher

2006

Journal of Creative Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With the increasing interest by Asian countries in developing a more creative workforce through the education system, many universities have introduced courses that aim to enhance the creativity of their students. Students also perceive a need for increased creativity. However, there is some debate about whether short‐term creativity training is effective at university level. This study examines the effect of a short (one‐semester) course, which included elements of creativity training and practice, at a Hong Kong university. Training in creativity techniques for part of the semester led to increases in two key aspects of creative ability as measured by standard creativity tests conducted outside the classroom: verbal creativity increased compared with a control group, and drawing creativity also increased. Students enjoyed the course, felt it was useful and rated themselves as more creative after the course. Short‐term out‐of‐discipline training courses in creative thinking have a number of other benefits, demonstrably for learning strategies, in addition to an increase in creative abilities.

show abstract

Divergent thinking in arts and science students:Contrary imaginationsat Keele revisited

Cited by 27 publications

References 9 publications

Emotional Creativity and Real-Life Involvement in Different Types of Creative Leisure Activities

Emotional Creativity and Real-Life Involvement in Different Types of Creative Leisure Activities

Creativity of university students: What is the impact of field and year of study?

Enhancement of Creativity through a One‐Semester Course in University

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About