Thinking Skills and Creativity 23 (2017) 112–128

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Thinking Skills and Creativity

j o ur na l ho me pag e: h t tp : / /www.e lsev ier .com/ locate / tsc

Developmental trends of divergent thinking and feelingacross different grades for Taiwanese adolescence between1990’s and 2010’s

Yu-Lin Chang, Hsueh-Chih Chen ∗, I-Chen Wu, Jen-Ho Chang, Ching-Lin WuDepartment of Educational Psychology and Counseling, National Taiwan Normal University, No. 162, Sec. 1, Heping E. Rd., Taipei City10610, Taiwan

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 9 March 2016Received in revised form 4 October 2016Accepted 5 December 2016Available online 8 December 2016

Keywords:Developmental trends of creativityAdolescenceDivergent thinkingDivergent feeling

a b s t r a c t

Previous studies regarding developmental trends of creativity in adolescence rarely focusedon both cognitive and affective factors of creativity. In Taiwan, the survey in this field alsolacked during these two decades. Therefore, this study aimed to understand Taiwanesestudents’ developmental trends of creativity in both cognitive and affective aspects. Theresearchers analyzed the difference between divergent thinking and divergent feeling ofTaiwanese adolescent students across different grades as well as the linear trend. The differ-ence of divergent thinking and divergent feeling scores between this study and the 1990s’was also examined. Participants included 1674 fifth-grade to eleventh-grade students (866boys, 51.73%). The results showed that divergent thinking scores as cognitive aspect signif-icantly enhanced as grade levels increased. The divergent feeling scores as affective aspectslightly enhanced as grade levels increased, but slumped in the sixth grade and steeplyascended in the eleventh grade. When the divergent thinking scores of the current stu-dents were compared with the scores of the students in 1990s, the types of developmentaltrend were different, which was the fluctuation of developmental trend was larger thanthe current trend which was smoother. The mean scores of current participants for eachgrade level had less variation than 1990s’. The divergent feeling scores in both 1990s’ and2010s’ increase and showed a similar linear upward trend. The results would suggest furtherinvestigation and promotion of creativity in education policy.

© 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction

Development of creativity in individuals is an important topic in education and psychology. The best known research ondevelopmental trends of creativity is that of Torrance (1968a,b), who, using the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT),

conducted a large-scale study in seven countries and introduced the 4th-grade slump phenomenon. Since then, there havebeen many studies related to developmental trends of creativity (e.g., Chae, 2003; Charles & Runco, 2001; Cheung, Lau, Chan,& Wu, 2004; Kim, 2011; Lopez, Esquivel, & Houtz, 1993; Lubart & Lautrey, 1995; Urban, 1991); however, the findings havegenerally been inconsistent (Makera, Jo, & Muammar, 2008). For example, among studies of the 4th-grade slump, several

∗ Corresponding author.E-mail addresses: gtyulin@gmail.com (Y.-L. Chang), chcjyh@gmail.com (H.-C. Chen), jaew0717@gmail.com (I.-C. Wu), jenhoc@gmail.com (J.-H. Chang),

chilin570@gmail.com (C.-L. Wu).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2016.12.0021871-1871/© 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

sSeor

cd&o

f1m&st

2voHaaid

1

amrcc&t

adDcbiddrstrdt

paaecln

Y.-L. Chang et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 23 (2017) 112–128 113

upported the findings of Torrance (Georgsdottir, Ameel, & Lubart, 2002; Lubart & Lautrey, 1995; Rosenblatt & Winner, 1988;molucha & Smolucha, 1985), whereas others yielded different trends (Besanc on and Lubart, 2008; Lopez et al., 1993; Makert al., 2008; Rosenblatt & Winner, 1988; Runco, 1989). Lau and Cheung (2010) analyzed the reasons for these mixed resultsf past studies of the development of creativity in children and adolescents. They claimed that (1) a relatively narrow ageange was included in many studies and (2) sample sizes were small in most studies.

In addition, most of these studies included only the childhood stage, whereas only a few focused on development ofreativity in adolescence (Kleibeuker, De Dreu, & Crone, 2013). However, adolescence is a key period in an individual’sevelopment and includes changes in many cognitive abilities (Casey, Jones & Hare, 2008; Collins, Gleason & Sesma, 1997; Hill

Holmbeck, 1986; Steinberg, 2005). Adolescent development plays an important role in shaping an individual’s developmentf creativity and therefore should be included in future studies.

Creativity is a syndrome with multiple aspects (Mumford & Gustafson, 1988). In addition to cognitive abilities, essentialactors in creative performance also include affective characteristics such as personality, motivation, and attitude (Amabile,983; Csikszentmihalyi, 1988; Gruber, 1988; Rhodes, 1961; Runco, 2007; Sternberg & Lubart, 1995). These characteristicsay not necessarily determine an individual’s current creativity but can serve as indices of future creativity (Jauk, Benedek,

Neubauer, 2014; Runco, 2008). Therefore, in addition to cognitive factors, affective features of development need to betudied when investigating creativity development in students. However, the majority of research related to developmentalrends of creativity focused on cognitive process and included only a few factors related to other dimensions.

Moreover, many studies indicated that development of creativity was influenced by social and cultural climates (Ng,001; Niu & Sternberg, 2001; Simonton, 1984; Williams et al., 1995). Developmental trends of creativity in individuals mayary from one region and time period to the next. In the previous two decades, Taiwan has gradually expanded the scopef creative education, previously limited to gifted students, to all students across grade levels (Chen, Wu, & Chen, 2005).owever, there is still a lack of evaluation and research on the developmental trends of creativity in local Taiwanese studentsnd the changes in developmental trends with time. (Hui & Lau, 2010). Therefore, the goal of the present study was to use

large sample spanning many grade levels to investigate trends in creative development among children and adolescentsn Taiwan from both the cognitive and affective perspectives and to compare the results with scores of creativity reporteduring the previous two decades.

.1. The theory of development of creativity from childhood to adolescence

Creativity is an integrated aggregate of many abilities and psychological processes that are naturally impacted by physicalnd mental development as one grows. Different views of continuous versus staged development formed when develop-ental psychologists explored human development (Brim & Kagan, 1980; Smith & Carlsson, 1985). The above views differ

egarding whether an observed developmental trend in creativity is due to maturation and experience or due to otherhanges during various stages in life (Runco & Pritzker, 1999). Certain scholars such as Keegan (1996), who performed aase study, concluded that processes related to creativity develop continuously. Other scholars such as Plucker, Beghetto,

Dow (2004) suggested that while certain processes involved in creativity are general and others are specifically defined,hey cannot be classified as merely continuous or stage-based but instead are a blend of both.

The conclusions that scholars have presented regarding developmental trends in creativity in childhood, adolescence, anddulthood are primarily of two tracks: trends associated with cognitive development and those associated with psychosocialevelopment. The cognitive view is primarily based on the theory of cognitive development proposed by Piaget (1970, 1976).ifferent stages were defined in Piaget’s theory. Children between ages 7 and 11 are in the concrete operational stage, andhildren older than 11 are in the formal operational stage. Piaget believed that creative imagination is an active assimilationehavior, the frequency of which will not decrease with age. Rather, creative imagination will gradually blend with one’s

ntellectual development as a result of related accommodation processes. In other words, based on Piaget’s view, creativityevelopment is present in different forms at different developmental stages. Therefore, in a test of creative thinking (e.g.,ivergent thinking), a certain age group may exhibit a slump trend with time; such a finding does not necessarily represent aeal decrease in ability but instead may indicate a change in the way that creativity is presented. When the formal operationaltage begins, children start to develop the hypothetico-deductive reasoning ability. The development may influence childreno less rely on intuitive thinking (Guignard & Lubart, 2006). Divergent thinking is a more intuitive process compared to logicaleasoning. As a result, we speculate that although a slump trend in scores on tests of creative thinking might be observeduring the transition from the concrete operational stage in childhood to the formal operational stage in adolescence, creativehinking will gradually advance as adolescents’ cognitive abilities develop during the formal operational stage.

Neuropsychological development also affects development patterns in divergent thinking (Kleibeuker et al., 2013). Therefrontal cortex, which is in charge of cognitive abilities (primarily executive functions), is fully developed in adolescence,lthough inhibitory abilities are still developing (Casey et al., 2008; Spear, 2000). Therefore, adolescents tend to be morettracted to external stimuli and exhibit more curiosity or risk-taking exploratory behavior (Johnson & Wilbrecht, 2011) and

ven display more divergent thinking capabilities than do adults (Gray, Buhusi & Schmajuk, 1997). However, development ofognitive abilities does not necessarily lead to creativity. Certain scholars, in contrast, concluded that cognitive developmenteads to a decrease in creativity in adolescence. For example, Runco et al. (Charles & Runco, 2001; Runco & Charles, 1997)oted that adolescents display a decrease in creativity as their critical thinking skills mature. Lubart and his colleagues

114 Y.-L. Chang et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 23 (2017) 112–128

hypothesized that creative thinking abilities decline as logical thinking skills mature in adolescence (Lubart & Georgsdottir,2004; Lubart & Lautrey, 1995; Georgsdottir et al., 2002).

The second view is related to psychosocial development. For example, Kohlberg’s theory of moral development assertsthat moral development emerges during middle childhood, i.e., approximately ages 9–10, and is a sign of progression fromthe pre-conventional stage to the conventional stage, when many thoughts and behaviors of students are prohibited bythe norms or expectations of society. Runco (2007) noted that during this transition, processes that are crucial to divergentthinking and creativity might be reduced due to possible pressure from societal norms, resulting in lower student scores ontests of divergent thinking. As a result, Runco concluded that creative potential peaks during childhood and is suppressed withmaturation during adolescence. Other contrasting views such as those of Claxton, Pannels, and Rhoads (2005), who used theself-identification view of Rothenberg (1990) in explaining development of creativity, hold that adolescents have parallelneeds of being connected and being separated when facing conflicts between social norms and individual development.Creativity demonstrated in adulthood indeed stems from the physiological, psychological, and social changes that occurduring adolescence. Adolescents begin to develop an identity. While actively trying to develop independence and self-identity, adolescents also begin to explore the ties with their peers and families. The continuous growth in self-observationand self-identity is a possible reason for growth in creativity tendencies during adolescence. Which development model bestcaptures the developmental trajectory of creativity in an individual during general development? Will factors from cognitiveand affective dimensions bring any difference to the developmental trend of creativity? Answers to these questions awaitempirical studies.

1.2. Studies of creative development in childhood and adolescence

When examining the developmental trend of creativity from childhood to adolescence from the cognitive perspective,studies have yielded inconsistent results in adolescence after 6th grade. Some studies showed a continuous decline after6th grade. Camp (1994) conducted a longitudinal study to follow a group of American students through 12th grade in the1970s. The results indicated that creative thinking continued to grow from a very young age to 6th grade but decreasedsignificantly from 6th to 9th grades. Kim (2011) aggregated data from more than 270,000 subjects from 1966, 1974, 1984,1990, 1998, and 2008 to create a large sample for the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT). The results did not showthe 4th-grade slump discovered by Torrance (1968a,b) but demonstrated a declining trend in 5th and 6th grade based on thefluency and originality scores. The fluency scores declined from 6th grade until adulthood. In contrast, the originality scorespeaked in 5th grade, declined until high school, and then rose again slightly but not significantly. The above two studiesindicated that children’s developmental potential of creativity peaks in 6th grade but continues to decline after adolescence.Certain studies indicated that the trough was in 6th grade and an increase occurred until 9th grade. Claxton et al. (2005) alsoconducted a longitudinal study to follow a group of 4th grade students over a long period of time in terms of their divergentthinking and divergent feeling development. The results indicated that in terms of divergent thinking, originality in studentsdropped significantly and bottomed between 4th and 6th grades and then rose between 6th and 9th grades. Kleibeuker et al.(2013) divided 98 Dutch participants into 4 age groups (12–13, 15–16, 18–19, and 25–30) using various tests of creativethinking. Among the test scores, both verbal and visuo-spatial divergent thinking peaked in adolescents in the age range of15–16. In other words, divergent thinking continued to grow between 6th and 9th grades but dropped slightly between 9thand 12th grades.

Some studies indicated that children’s creative cognition significantly rose again subsequent to the sudden drop after 6thgrade. Lee and Choi (2012) surveyed 2248 Korean high schoolers using the Korean Individual Creativity Test. This test mea-sures two domains, creative abilities (flexibility, fluency, originality, elaboration, and sensitivity to thinking) and creativepersonality traits (curiosity, sensitivity, task commitment, humor, challenge, and leadership during problem solving). Theresults indicated a downward trend in creative abilities in 7th through 9th grades, which is consistent with the abovemen-tioned trend observed by Camp (1994) and Kim (2011). This trend reversed and began to rise in late adolescence during 10thand 11th grades and peaked in 11th grade. Overall, figurative creativity of Korean 10th and 11th graders was better than thatof their junior high counterparts in 7th through 9th grades. Hong Kong is near Taiwan. Lau and Cheung (2010) investigateddivergent thinking in 2479 students from 4th through 9th grades in Hong Kong using the computerized Wallach-Kogan cre-ativity tests. The results indicated a trend different from that observed in Korea. The students’ creativity scores rose between4th and 5th grades but began to drop between 5th and 6th grades. During their middle and high school years, the students’creativity scores continued to drop between 6th and 7th grades and then rose during 7th and 9th grades, which differedfrom the trend in Korea. However, the study of Lau and Cheung (2010) involved only students up to 9th grade and didnot study development in late adolescence. To summarize these studies, fluctuations in divergent thinking development inchildhood to adolescence generally occur at the transition between elementary and high school. In addition, changes occurduring the transition from 9th grade in junior high to senior high school. These changes indicate that divergent thinking isaffected not only by physiological maturation and cognitive development but also by interactions between the individualand the external social environment. We should also be mindful that different divergent thinking tests may possibly lead to

differences in test results.

When studying development of creativity from the perspective of social affect, Erickson (1963) noted that adolescenceis an important period for individuals as they explore life, engage in self-evaluation and develop feelings of self-identity.Although adolescents appear to be primarily pursuing an identity and acceptance by their peers, adolescents are also devel-

otgmwpcdlt7swgtap

1

artZThaCDtciaitJm

TfTrt“oMgCewwns

2

tgs

Y.-L. Chang et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 23 (2017) 112–128 115

ping their own perspectives about themselves and the world. Allison and Schultz (2001) shared a similar viewpoint, i.e.,hat adolescents begin to develop a basic self-identity starting in 9th grade. Adolescents will learn from the perspectiveained through self-identification and will become more confident in undertaking creative activities and, in turn, developotivation for future creative endeavors. However, there are very few empirical studies that included affective elementshen investigating the developmental trends in creativity. Employing the CAP test of Williams (1969), Claxton et al. (2005)

erformed a longitudinal study of students starting in 4th grade to explore their development of creative thinking andreative tendencies. The results indicated that when looking at the four dimensions of CAP divergent feeling (creative ten-encies), namely risk-taking, curiosity, imagination, and complexity, creativity development grew significantly with grade

evel. A significant increase in scores was found during 6th and 9th grades on all four factors of divergent feeling. However,he study of Korean high schoolers by Lee and Choi (2013) indicated that creative personality traits were less evident duringth and 9th grades and increased after 10th grade. Shen, Wang, and Shi (2005) used a self-created creative tendency chart totudy 476 students in 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 10th, and 11th grades in Beijing, China. The results indicated a general upward trendith rising grade level and an inverted V-shaped curve in creative tendencies in adolescence. Creative tendencies were the

reatest in the 5th to 7th graders and then dropped to a low in 11th grade. Studies in the United States indicated an upwardrend in adolescent creative tendencies with grade level. However, the study results in Korea and China indicated that cre-tive tendencies in adolescent students after middle school based on self-made assessments showed a downward trend,ossibly related to the high school teaching environment in Korea and China, which is widely affected by credentialism.

.3. Impact of social changes on development of creativity

Scores on intelligence tests evidently increase year after year (Cattell, 1950; Tuddenham, 1948). Flynn (1984, 1987)nalyzed intelligence test data collected in the United States and fourteen other developed countries from various years andeported that the average intelligence score increased approximately 0.17–0.83 points per year in each country from 1932o 1978. Herrnstein and Murray (1994) subsequently referred to this phenomenon as the Flynn effect. Chen, Chen, Liao, andhu (2011) analyzed the Wechsler Intelligence Test scores of students from various age groups between 1997 and 2007 inaiwan and confirmed the overall presence of the Flynn effect. The cause of the Flynn effect is complex such that scholarsave not arrived at a clear consensus. Genetics, nutrition, health, family structural changes, and various other factors suchs social and educational advances may affect one another (Flynn, 2006; Mingroni, 2007; Schooler, Mulatu, & Oates, 1999).reativity has been regarded as overlapping with intelligence to a certain extent but different in psychological constructs.oes the Flynn effect also play a role in creativity? Kim (2011) compared the TTCT scores from different years and found

hat between 1968 and 2008, almost all the subscale scores decreased significantly except those of resistance to prematurelosure, which increased significantly. If the subscale scores from the latest 10 years are compared, only that of originalityncreased, whereas all the other scores decreased significantly. Kim (2011) presented a great deal of discussion and manyssumptions in his dissertation, which was based on a sample of more than 270,000 subjects. Kim concluded that educationn the United States has changed from being successful in encouraging creativity in children to implementing standardizedesting and is even adopting national educational standards (Lewin, 2010; July 21). In contrast, countries such as China,apan, Korea, and Taiwan have modeled their educational systems on the American educational system and have placed

ore emphasis on creativity (Kim, 2011).In recent years, due to demands from business and economic development, mainland China, Hong Kong, Singapore, and

aiwan have begun to encourage and implement creative education. Taiwan has the highest input of resources, particularlyrom non-government organizations under executive coordination between industry and the government (Hui & Lau 2010).o foster national competitiveness and the overall quality of life, the Ministry of Education of Taiwan promoted educationaleform. In 2000, the MOE set curriculum goals including the following: “To develop creativity”, “To develop abilities relatedo independent thinking and problem solving”, and “To acquire the ability to utilize technology and information” in thegeneral guidelines of the grade 1–9 curriculum of elementary and junior high school education” (The Ministry of Educationf Taiwan, 2001). In addition, Taiwan has an official document, the White Paper on Creative Education, published in 2003.ultiple levels of creativity development have been discussed in Taiwan to foster creativity in educational activities at all

rade levels through gradual implementation (Chang et al., 2013). However, Hui and Lau (2010) noted that among mainlandhina, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Taiwan, none have used standardized creativity tests to identify creative students orvaluate the efficacy of creative education. Therefore, there are still questions that are unanswered. After 10 years of hardork, will the educational system in Taiwan adequately promote student creativity, or will it resemble the American system,here creative performance has worsened? Before these questions can be answered, a study involving a large sample is

eeded. This study can not only help us explain the developmental trend of creativity from both individual and societaltandpoints but can also serve as a valuable reference for the implementation and promotion of creative education.

. The present study

The goal of the present study was to investigate and analyze creative development trends in adolescents in Taiwan ando compare the findings with the creative development situation prior to the active promotion of creative education by theovernment. The adolescents involved in the present study were students in late elementary to senior high school. Manytudies have stressed the importance of both cognitive and affective processes in creative behavior (Houtz & Krug, 1995;

116 Y.-L. Chang et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 23 (2017) 112–128

Treffinger, Isaksen and Firestein, 1983). From an educational standpoint, the situation where student’s creativity is easilychanged due to intervention of educational environment reflects the characteristics of cognitive thinking and emotionaltendencies (Houtz & Krug, 1995; Simonton, 2012; Treffinger et al., 1983; Williams, 1969).

Because divergent thinking is the most commonly used index in evaluating creative cognition potential, as proposed byGuilford (1956, 1977, 1988), many studies have relied on divergent thinking to assess creativity (e.g., Furnham, Batey, Anand,& Manfield, 2008; Kaufman, Plucker, & Baer, 2008; Plucker & Makel, 2010; Silvia et al., 2008; Silvia, Nusbaum, Berg, Martin,& O’Connor, 2009). Although divergent thinking is not a perfect proxy for creativity, the specific operational definition ofdivergent thinking enables us to make reliable measurements of creative thinking (Runco & Acar, 2012). Tests of divergentthinking are appropriate for surveying large groups with good reliability and validity. In addition, tests of divergent thinkinghave made a unique contribution to identifying creative potential (Plucker & Renzulli, 1999; Runco & Acar, 2012; Runco& Albert, 1985; Vincent, Decker, & Mumford, 2002) and thus are useful in defining the cognitive potential of creativity(Runco & Acar, 2012). Many tests have been compiled based on the concept of divergent thinking (Hocevar, 1981; Zeng,Proctor, & Salvendy, 2011). There are generally four indices used to measure divergent thinking: (1) fluency, i.e., the numberof responses provided by the test subject; (2) flexibility, i.e., the number of types of responses the subject generated; (3)originality, i.e., the number of unique responses the subject generated, usually measured statistically based on the occurrencefrequency; and (4) elaboration, i.e., the elegance and refinement of the subject’s responses.

In contrast, Williams (1969) proposed a cognitive-affective creativity model in which divergent feeling is used to mea-sure creative performance from the affective perspective. Divergent feeling is the attitude, motivation, interest, and moodexpressed by an individual when performing divergent thinking (Hsiao, 2014; Edwin, Emily, & John, 2005; Maddux &Galinsky, 2009). Divergent feeling has several aspects: curiosity, imagination, risk-taking, and complexity. Curiosity is anindividual’s eagerness in pursuing an answer when having question or doubts while continuing to think, investigate, ask,and be unafraid of difficulties in order to understand the ultimate truth. It is a key feature of questioning and brainstorming.Imagination is the quality of mind of using instincts to speculate and conceive of and visualize various images when brain-storming about questions beyond reality with unlimited possibilities. Risk-taking is the quality of having an exploratoryspirit in guessing, trying, and experimenting or being actively receptive to criticism or failure face-to-face but still able topersevere while remaining confident of one’s opinion and handling unknown situations. Complexity refers to the ability tofind a solution when handling complex question or chaotic opinions. An individual with this trait will apply logic in a complexsituation without feeling stress and will pursue numerous possibilities to identify key issues and handle problems in an orga-nized way. This connotation has overlapped in the creative personality and affective constructs of many researchers (Basadur& Hausdorf, 1996; Kumar, Kemmler & Holman, 1997; Rimm & Davis, 1980; Rookey, 1973) and is therefore appropriate foruse as an index of creativity and its affective dimension.

From childhood to adolescence, cognitive development transitions from the concrete operational stage to the formaloperational stage. Will creative cognition in students be impacted during this transitional stage and thus decline, or willit increase with time because of factors such as intelligence and learning experiences? Will students in childhood andadolescence who are developing self-identities be more willing to participate in creative activities, or due to the enormouspressure of admission entrance exams in high school, will students become less willing to participate in creative activities andspend more time preparing for exams? Finally, will creative performance be enhanced by efforts of the Taiwan governmentand non-government groups to promote creative education, the openness of Taiwan’s social democracy, and the correlationbetween the Flynn effect and intelligence in Taiwan reported by Chen et al. (2011). To address these questions, the followingresearch questions were posed at the outset of the present study:

(1) Does divergent thinking in adolescence in Taiwan trend downward in adolescence after peaking in 6th grade, or is thetrend upward starting in 6th grade and extending through adolescence?

(2) Does divergent feeling in adolescent students in Taiwan trend upward with rising grade level, or does it begin to decreasein middle adolescence and exhibit a V-shaped trend?

(3) Is there an upward trend in creative developmental in the previous 20 years in Taiwan?

3. Methods

3.1. Participants

In this study, a portion of the participant data was taken from the series of studies performed by the second author (Chang,Su, & Chen, 2015; Chang, Chen, Hsu, Chan, & Chang, 2015; Chang, Hsu, Shih, & Chen, 2014), which included 982 students in5th, 6th, 7th and 9th grades in Taiwan. The remaining participant data were taken from a study of 692 high school studentsin 7th through 11th grades in Taiwan by the first author in 2014 and 2015. The number of participants in the present studytotaled 1674 students. The participants were selected from different geographic regions in Taiwan. The classes were the

primary cluster sampling units. Urban schools were accounted for 44%, and suburban or rural schools were accounted for56%. Sixty-three percent of participants was from western region of Taiwan, where was a more economically developed area.Thirty-seven percent of participants was from east region of Taiwan, where was less economically developed. The numberof participants and the gender ratio in each grade are as follows (Table 1):

Y.-L. Chang et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 23 (2017) 112–128 117

Table 1Number of participants and gender ratio in each grade.

Grade male female total

5 137 (57.81%) 100 (42.19%) 2376 64 (53.33%) 56 (46.67%) 1207 122 (49.80%) 123 (50.20%) 2458 225 (52.45%) 204 (47.55%) 4299 82 (43.16%) 108 (56.84%) 190

3

c(nF

3

(s

fiba

aoi

fc

aFbe

3

ioi(ic0C

4

mstocTtl

10 175 (59.12%) 121 (40.88%) 29611 61 (38.85%) 96 (61.15%) 157total 866 (51.73%) 808 (48.27%) 1674

.2. Measures

This study used the New Tests of Creative Thinking to assess the young adolescents’ divergent thinking as an index ofreative cognition potential. We also used the scores from the Test of Divergent Feeling in the Creativity Assessment PacketCAP) as an index of creative affect potential. To compare across years, we used the mean and standard deviation of theorm for adolescents from both the New Tests of Creative Thinking developed by Wu et al. (1999) and the test of Divergenteeling developed by Lin and Wang (1994) to represent the creative performance of Taiwanese adolescents in the past.

.2.1. New tests of creative thinkingThe New Tests of Creative Thinking conducted by Wu et al. (1999) was based on the Torrance Tests of Creativity Thinking

Torrance, 1974) and modified for a Chinese version, and has been widely used in Chinese society for identifying creativetudents (Wu & Albanese, 2010). This test consisted of two tasks: verbal creativity task (Unusual uses of chopsticks) and

gural creativity task (to draw a Chinese character ‘ ’). The researchers used this figural creativity task rather than verbalased test because previous studies revealed that figural creativity task has been shown to be less biased in terms of languagend verbal ability (Kim, 2006; Torrance, 1977).

Figural creativity task measured the figural aspect of creative thinking with four indices: fluency, flexibility, originality,nd elaboration. The score of fluency was calculated by following formation: total responses minus the repeated or irrelevantnes. The score of flexibility was calculated by referring to the category indices in instruction manual, and each category had

ts own credit. The score of originality was counted by referring to the norm in the manual, and each response was scored

rom 0 to 2. Elaboration was identified by the number of figural decorative items to the Chinese character ‘ ’. One itemredited one point. Each task took approximate10 min.

As for reliability and validity, analyses based on 2300 participants across different developmental stages (from children todults) showed that each creativity index (e.g., fluency) was correlated positively with the Torrance Creativity Thinking Test-igural (rs = 0.39–0.75, ps < 0.001; Wu et al., 1999). In the present study, three independent raters, blind to the participant’sackground, provided highly consistent ratings across all indices (rs = 0.90–0.99, ps < 0.001). This study did not includelaboration scores due to the subjectivity of elaboration scores and lower correlation with other criterions.

.2.2. Creativity assessment packet (CAP)The CAP was created by Williams (1980) to assess creativity in cognitive and affective aspects. The Test of Divergent Feeling

n the Creativity Assessment Packet (CAP) was administered to assess the participants’ affective aspect of creativity. The Testf Divergent Feeling consisted of four categories: curiosity (13 items; e.g., I would like to know what other people think),

magination (13 items; e.g., If the final page of a storybook is missing, I will make up the story’s ending myself), complexity12 items; e.g., I like unusual things), and risk taking (12 items; e.g., Trying a new game or activity is an interesting thing). Eachtem is scored on a 3-point Likert scale. The Chinese version created by Lin and Wang (1994) established its good internalonsistency (Cronbach’s �s 0.77–0.88) and test–retest reliability for young adolescents after three months (rs 0.49–0.81, ps.001), and showed good predicted value for identifying creative students. The studies of Chan, Chen, & Lavallee (2013) andhang, Chen et al. (2015), Chang, Su et al. (2015) revealed good reliability and validity in Chinese participants.

. Results

First, we tested for grade differences on three indices of divergent thinking and four indices of divergent feeling usingultivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA). Then, we used one-way ANOVA to analyze each index with grade as an inter-

ubjective factor combined with trend analysis to analyze the developmental trend at each grade level. For the significancehresholds of each univariate analysis, the three indices of divergent thinking were set to p < 0.05/3 = 0.016. The four indicesf divergent feeling were set to p < 0.05/4 = 0.012. Tukey HSD tests were applied for post-hoc analysis of group-to-group

omparisons. Finally, we compared the results to the mean of the norm for adolescents in both the New Tests of Creativehinking developed by Wu et al. (1999) and the test of Divergent Feeling developed by Lin and Wang (1994). We used the-test to analyze the differences between the scores of the present study (2014–2015) and the norm in the past at each gradeevel.

118 Y.-L. Chang et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 23 (2017) 112–128

Table 2Means and standards deviation of the Divergent Thinking and Divergent Feeling by grade levels.

Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11

(N = 237) (N = 120) (N = 245) (N = 429) (N = 190) (N = 296) (N = 157)

M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD

Divergent thinkingFigural fluency 11.33 5.34 11.84 4.88 11.91 5.87 13.27 5.91 12.65 6.63 14.27 5.84 15.25 5.41Figural flexibility 7.75 2.95 8.28 2.84 7.79 3.54 8.34 3.37 8.05 3.81 9.71 2.95 10.14 2.99Figural originality 8.32 5.77 7.78 5.09 9.11 6.22 10.17 6.35 9.77 6.90 10.46 6.86 11.53 6.41

Divergent FeelingRisk-taking 2.23 0.28 2.17 0.25 2.24 0.29 2.26 0.26 2.27 0.26 2.20 0.25 2.32 0.26Curiosity 2.27 0.36 2.19 0.34 2.25 0.34 2.30 0.32 2.28 0.33 2.27 0.30 2.42 0.28Complexity 2.07 0.39 1.95 0.35 2.08 0.35 2.10 0.35 2.13 0.33 2.13 0.32 2.28 0.29Imagination 2.26 0.27 2.19 0.24 2.25 0.26 2.31 0.28 2.35 0.26 2.32 0.27 2.52 0.26

Fig. 1. Total figural fluency, figural flexibility, figural originality by grade level.

4.1. Difference and developmental trend of divergent thinking and divergent feeling measures by grade level

Means and standard deviations of divergent thinking and divergent feeling measures were presented in Table 2. Thedevelopmental trend of total divergent thinking indices (figural fluency, figural flexibility, figural originality) by grade levelswere displayed in Fig. 1. The developmental trend of total divergent feeling indices (risk taking, curiosity, complexity,imagination) by grade levels were displayed in Fig. 2.

4.1.1. Divergent thinkingAll participants were divided into seven groups from the fifth to the eleventh grade. MANOVA was used to examine three

indices of Divergent Thinking: figural fluency, figural flexibility, and figural originality. In general, the results showed thatthese three creative thinking indices had a significant difference among grade levels (Wiiks’ � = 0.91, F(18, 4709.82) = 8.45,

p < 0.001, p�2 = 0.030). ANOVA, trend analysis, and Turkey HSD tests (Post-Hoc) were then used to analyze figural fluency,figural flexibility, and figural originality.

The scores of figural fluency had a significant difference by grade levels (F(6, 1667) = 12.16, p < 0.001, p�2 = 0.042.). Over-all, the linear trend showed a significant increase (F(1, 1667) = 64.19, p < 0.001), but the nonlinear trend did not show its

Y.-L. Chang et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 23 (2017) 112–128 119

slas

TnP(gt

wtty

4

tlw

e1t(wge

Fig. 2. Total Risk-taking, Curiosity, Complexity, Imagination by grade level.

ignificance. Post-Hoc analysis showed that there was no significant difference from the fifth and sixth grades (elementaryevel) to the seventh grade (junior high level). The scores of two grades increased significantly: 1) The eighth grade had

significant increase compared to the fifth grade (p = 0.001); 2) The tenth and eleventh grades (senior high level) had aignificant increase and the tenth grade were higher than the ninth grade (p = 0.042).

The scores of figural flexibility had a significant difference by grade levels (F(6, 1667) = 18.30, p < 0.001, p�2 = 0.062).he linear trend also showed a significant increase from the fifth to the eleventh grade (F(1, 1667) = 78.01, p < 0.001). Theonlinear trend also showed its significance (F(1, 1667) = 17.01, p < 0.001). But the linear trend was the best fitting model.ost-Hoc analysis showed there was no significant difference from the fifth grade (elementary level) to the ninth gradejunior high level). The tenth grade (senior high level) started to ascend steeply and was significantly higher than the ninthrade (p < 0.001). As a whole, the developmental trend ascended as grades increased and was displayed as a pattern similaro a J-shaped curve.

The scores of figural originality had a significant difference by grade levels (F(6, 1667) = 7.37, p < 0.001, p�2 = 0.026). As ahole, the linear trend showed a significant increase from the fifth to the eleventh grade (F(1, 1667) = 37.44, p < 0.001), but

he nonlinear trend did not show its significance. The linear trend was the best fitting model. Post-Hoc analysis indicatedhere was no significance among grade levels. The scores of the sixth grade and above were displayed as an ascending trendear by year.

.1.2. Divergent feelingMANOVA was applied to examine four indices, risk-taking, curiosity, complexity, and imagination of divergent feeling in

he fifth- to eleventh-grade students. The results indicated that the scores of four indices had a significant difference by gradeevels (Wiiks’ � = 0.88, F(24, 5806.21) = 8.42, p < 0.001, p�2 = 0.029). ANOVA, trend analysis, and Turkey HSD tests (Post-Hoc)

ere then used to analyzed risk-taking, curiosity, complexity, and imagination.The scores of risk-taking had a significant difference by grade levels (F(6, 1667) = 5.72, p < 0.001, p�2 = 0.020). The lin-

ar trend showed a slight increase from the fifth to the eleventh grade. The linear trend reached a significant level (F(1,667) = 4.541, p = 0.033). The quartic trend was more evident (F(6, 1667) = 25.28, p < 0.001), which indicated that the risk-aking was changing. Post-Hoc analysis showed a pattern from the fifth grade (elementary level) to the eleventh grade

senior high level). The scores of the sixth and the tenth grades were lower than other grades. The score of the sixth gradeas at the lowest point, significantly lower than the eighth grade (p = 0.17), the ninth grade (p = 0.025) and the eleventh

rade (p < 0.001). The scores of the tenth grade were at the second lowest point, significantly lower than the eighth and theleventh grades (p < 0.001) which were at higher points. An entire developmental trend displayed as a W-shaped curve.

120 Y.-L. Chang et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 23 (2017) 112–128

The scores of curiosity had a significant difference by grade levels (F(6, 1667) = 7.01, p < 0.001, p�2 = 0.025. 5). The lineartrend showed a significant increase from the fifth to the eleventh grade (F(1, 1667) = 16.20, p < 0.001). The quartic trend wasalso significant and provided the same results as the risk-taking (F(4, 1667) = 17.94, p < 0.001). Post-Hoc analysis demon-strated that the score of the sixth grade was at the lowest point and had a significant difference compared to other grades(ps ≤ 0.001–0.025), except the seventh grade. The score of the eleventh grade had a significant increase and was higher thanother grades (all ps < 0.001). An overall developmental trend also was displayed as a W-shaped curve.

The scores of imagination had a significant difference by grade levels (F(6, 1667) = 24.62, p < 0.001, p�2 = 0.081). The lineartrend showed a significant increase from the fifth to the eleventh grade (F(1, 1667) = 41.04, p < 0.001). The quartic trend alsoexhibited significance (F(1, 1667) = 16.68, p < 0.001.). Post-Hoc analysis demonstrated that the score of the sixth grade wasat the lowest point and significantly lower than other grades (ps ≤ 0.001–0.002). There was no significant difference fromthe seventh grade to the tenth grade. The score of the eleventh grade had a significant increase and was higher than othergrades (all ps< 0.001). The entire developmental trend was displayed as a skew V-shaped curve.

The scores of complexity had a significant difference by grade levels (F(6, 1667) = 11.55, p < 0.001, p�2 = 0.040). The lin-ear trend showed a significant increase from the fifth to the eleventh grade (F(1, 1667) = 90.87, p < 0.001). The quadratictrend (F(1, 1667) = 17.70, p < 0.001) and the quartic trend (F(1, 1667) = 34.00, p < 0.001) also exhibited significance. Post-Hocanalysis demonstrated that the score of the sixth grade was at the lowest point and significantly lower than other grades(ps ≤ 0.001–0.027). The score of the eleventh grade had a significant increase and was higher than other grades (all ps < 0.001).The whole developmental trend was displayed as a skew V-shaped curve.

4.2. The difference of divergent thinking and divergent feeling in recent 20 years in Taiwan

The two mean scores of adolescent norms established in The New Tests of Creative Thinking by Wu et al. 1999 andDivergent Feeling by Lin and Wang (1994) represented student creativity potential before creativity education was promotedin Taiwan. The scores collected from 2014 and 2015 in this study were the representatives of creativity education popularizedin Taiwan.

Three studies had different age ranges for sampling. In Wu et al.’s study, the norm included participants from grade 5to graduate level without grade 9 and 12. In Lin and Wang’ study (1994), the norm comprised of students from grade 5 to12. The researchers in this study selected six grades, including 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 10th, 11th grades, which were overlappedamong these three studies. In addition, the sampling of all studies focused on Taiwanese schools. However, the percentagesamong different areas as well as among different geographic regions were not the same. In the sample collected from 2014to 2015, participants in urban and rural areas were accounted for 44% and 56%, and students in western and eastern regionswere separately accounted for 63% and 37%. The norm in Wu et al.’s study (1999) included 88% of the participants in urbanschools and 12% in rural schools, showing significantly different from the 2014–2015 sample (�2 (1) = 3499.73, p < 0.001).All students were from the western region (no eastern region data), also significantly different from the 2014–2015 sample.In Lin and Wang’s study (1994), the urban schools were accounted for 50% as well as rural schools, showing significantlydifferent (�2 (1) = 26.75, p < 0.001), and the school percentages with 78% from western regions, 22% from eastern regions(�2 (1) = 173.06, p < 0.001). Compared to the past, in general, more participants were recruited from rural areas and easternregion (remote areas) in the 2014–2015 sample.

The means and standard deviations of divergent thinking and divergent feeling measures in different eras were presentedin Tables 3 and 4. The difference in each index of divergent thinking and divergent feeling measures in different eras wereillustrated in Figs. 3–9.

4.2.1. Divergent thinking between 1998 and 2014–2015As Table 3 and Table 4, figural fluency, figural flexibility, and figural originality in 1998 had a similar developmental

trend. The scores of the fifth to the seventh grade had a significant increase, the eighth grade had a slump, and the tenthgrade in senior high level increased. The scores of the eleventh grade was slightly decreased different from the scores in2014–2015. The means of figural fluency of the seventh grade in 2014–2015 was significantly lower than it in 1998. However,the figural fluency of the eighth and the eleventh grade in 2014–2015 was significantly higher than it in 1998. With regardto figural flexibility, the score in seventh grade in 2014–2015 was significantly lower than it in 1998. The figural flexibilityof the eleventh grade in 2014–2015 was significantly higher than it in 1998. Concerning the figural originality, the scores ofthe fifth, the eighth, and eleventh grade were significantly higher than it in 1998, and the scores of other grades were notsignificantly different from the scores in 1998.

4.2.2. Divergent feeling between 1994 and 2014–2015

The development trend of divergent feeling in 1994 was similar to it in 2014–2015. The divergent thinking had no

significant difference by grade levels as well as no slump in the sixth grade and no steep ascending in the eleventh grade.Except the imagination score of the sixth and seventh grade, the means of grade levels in 2014–2015 were significantlyenhanced than any other scores in 1994 (ts = 3.40–19.66, all ps < 0.001).

Y.-L. Chang et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 23 (2017) 112–128 121

Fig. 3. Figural Fluency by grade level for Years 1998, 2014–2015.

Fig. 4. Figural Flexibility by grade level for Years 1998, 2014–2015.

Fig. 5. Figural Originality by grade level for Years 1998, 2014–2015.

122 Y.-L. Chang et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 23 (2017) 112–128

Table 3Means and Standard Deviations of the Subscale Scores on the New Tests of Creative Thinking for Years 1994 (norm), 2014–2015 (present study) and t-test.

1998 norm 2014–2015 t-test

Grade N M SD N M SD

Figural fluency 5 275 11.14 6.02 237 11.33 5.34 0.386 297 11.91 6.41 120 11.84 4.88 −0.117 237 13.20 5.17 245 11.91 5.87 −2.56 **

8 363 12.09 5.73 429 13.27 5.91 2.84 **

10 332 14.42 6.19 296 14.27 5.84 −0.3111 291 13.64 5.35 157 15.25 5.41 3.03 **

Figural flexibility 5 275 7.70 3.29 237 7.75 2.95 0.186 297 8.24 3.57 120 8.28 2.84 0.117 237 8.78 2.75 245 7.79 3.54 −3.42 ***

8 363 8.33 3.16 429 8.34 3.37 0.0410 332 9.45 3.17 296 9.71 2.95 1.0611 291 9.15 2.88 157 10.14 2.99 3.42 ***

Figural originality 5 275 7.00 6.18 237 8.32 5.77 2.48 **

6 297 7.78 6.26 120 7.78 5.09 0.007 237 8.57 5.44 245 9.11 6.22 1.018 363 8.18 5.86 429 10.17 6.35 4.55 ***

10 332 9.70 6.39 296 10.46 6.86 1.4411 291 8.74 5.33 157 11.53 6.41 4.92 ***

Note. In the norm of The New Tests of Creative Thinking (Wu et al., 1999), the means and standard deviations of the ninth grade were not provided. Thus,the comparison was not presented. *p < 0.05.

** p < 0.01.*** p < 0.001.

Table 4Means and Standard Deviations of the Subscale Scores on the Exercise in Divergent Feeling for Years 1994 (norm), 2014–2015 (present study) and t-test.

1994 norm 2011–2014 t-testGrade N M SD N M SD

Risk-taking 5 198 1.86 0.19 237 2.23 0.28 15.80 ***

6 188 1.91 0.25 120 2.17 0.25 8.90 ***

7 215 1.94 0.23 245 2.24 0.29 12.18 ***

8 201 1.96 0.23 429 2.26 0.26 13.99 ***

9 216 1.98 0.22 190 2.27 0.26 12.17 ***

10 243 1.97 0.24 124 2.26 0.26 10.64 ***

11 226 1.98 0.26 157 2.32 0.26 12.59 ***

Curiosity 5 198 1.75 0.26 237 2.27 0.36 16.96 ***

6 188 1.77 0.27 120 2.19 0.34 12.01 ***

7 215 1.86 0.26 245 2.25 0.34 13.67 ***

8 201 1.86 0.28 429 2.3 0.32 16.72 ***

9 216 1.85 0.26 190 2.28 0.33 14.66 ***

10 243 1.84 0.26 124 2.37 0.3 17.52 ***

11 226 1.86 0.27 157 2.42 0.28 19.66 ***

Imagination 5 198 1.88 0.29 237 2.07 0.39 5.67 ***

6 188 1.92 0.33 120 1.95 0.35 0.767 215 1.99 0.37 245 2.08 0.35 2.688 201 2 0.33 429 2.1 0.35 3.40 ***

9 216 1.95 0.35 190 2.13 0.33 5.31 ***

10 243 1.94 0.28 124 2.24 0.3 9.47 ***

11 226 1.95 0.29 157 2.28 0.29 10.95 ***

Complexity 5 198 1.91 0.28 237 2.26 0.27 13.24 ***

6 188 1.9 0.26 120 2.19 0.24 9.83 ***

7 215 1.98 0.28 245 2.25 0.26 10.72 ***

8 201 1.97 0.27 429 2.31 0.28 14.37 ***

9 216 1.94 0.28 190 2.35 0.26 15.22 ***

***

10 243 1.98 0.28 124 2.43 0.27 14.7411 226 1.99 0.28 157 2.52 0.26 18.76 ***

*** p < 0.001.

5. Discussion

5.1. Developmental trend of divergent thinking

The results indicated that figural fluency in divergent thinking in 5th through 7th grades did not trend upward but didincrease with each grade level from 8th through 11th grades. Figural flexibility in 5th through 9th grades did not differ

Y.-L. Chang et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 23 (2017) 112–128 123

Fig. 6. Risk-taking by grade level for Years 1994, 2014–2015.

s5gtwHwcsiLttHncHd

Fig. 7. Curiosity by grade level for Years 1994, 2014–2015.

ignificantly but did begin to increase during 10th and 11th grades. Figural originality, except for small fluctuations duringth through 7th grades that decreased initially and then increased, slowly increased and then peaked in 11th grade. Theradual increase beginning in 5th grade indicated that, empirically, the transition from one stage of cognitive developmento the next does not have a negative impact on the development of divergent thinking. The overall results are not consistentith the results of American studies such as those of Camp (1994) and Kim (2011), who reported a decline after 6th grade.owever, the data collected by Camp (1994) dated back to the 1970s, and the grade comparison data from Kim (2011)ere merged from 40 years ago, starting from the 1960s, which could differ from the recent data used in our study due to

hanges with time. Our results are inconsistent with those of Lau and Cheung (2010), although both studies involved Asiantudents. We did not observe a significant drop during 5th through 7th grades, when elementary students are transitioningnto high school, as Lau and Cheung (2010) reported. No specific interpretation of the 7th-grade slump was presented byau and Cheung. Interestingly, however, an 8th-grade slump was evident in our results after making the comparison withhe norm trends (see Figs. 3–5) of 1998 based on the New Tests of Creative Thinking, the assessment instrument used inhe present study. Therefore, several questions arose: What explains the difference between the findings in Taiwan andong Kong? Was it due to the different tools that were used? We used the New Tests of Creative Thinking, whereas the

ew computerized Wallach-Kogan creativity tests were used in the Hong Kong study. Was the difference due to differentreative education policies promoted in Taiwan and Hong Kong? Further studies are needed to answer these questions.owever, these inconsistent results also refer that the development of creative cognition from childhood to adolescenceoes not necessarily have biological universals as similar to the Piaget’s theory of cognitive development. The social factors

124 Y.-L. Chang et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 23 (2017) 112–128

Fig. 8. Imagination by grade level for Years 1994, 2014–2015.

Fig. 9. Complexity by grade level for Years 1994, 2014–2015.

may interact its development simultaneously. The developmental trend after 7th grade observed in the present study isconsistent with the results of other recent studies, such as those of Claxton et al. (2005), Kleibeuker et al. (2013), Lee andChoi (2012), and Lau and Cheung (2010). All show a general upward trend as with rising grade level, indicating that the localdevelopmental trend in creative potential in adolescence may overtake the trends in other cultures in Europe, the UnitedStates, and Asia overall.

5.2. Developmental trend in divergent feeling

The results of our study revealed that 4 of the subscale scores on the test of divergent feeling generally showed a linearupward trend. The 6th graders scored the lowest on the subscales, and the 11th graders scored the highest, which suggeststhat supporting adolescents through increasing self-awareness and self-recognition can boost their confidence to do creativeactivities and generate ideas of creative motivation (Allison & Schultz, 2001; Claxton et al., 2005; Erickson, 1963; Rothenberg,1990). The findings of both the present study and the longitudinal study of Claxton et al. (2005) were consistent in that thedivergent feeling in 6th through 9th grades showed a steep upward curve. Claxton et al. (2005) believed that because

students in 6th through 9th grades are growing into adolescence, the change in divergent feeling should be viewed as anoncognitive factor in creativity, as suggested by Cropley (2003). Claxton also believed that divergent feeling is related tocreative motivation, which will continue to develop during adolescence. However, our results differed from findings in Korea(Lee & Choi, 2013) and Beijing (Shen et al., 2005). Shen et al. (2005) suggested that the decrease in divergent feeling in high

sttstieE

5

i8ivogt2a

ctorc

vroeaowpiiciidoami

aivtd

5

peT

s

Y.-L. Chang et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 23 (2017) 112–128 125

chool students is due to a decline in their idealism: as they grow in experience and knowledge, high school students comeo resemble adults, whose creativity has become impoverished. Shen et al. (2005) also mentioned the pressure of test-takinghat high school students experience, which is prevalent in East Asia but not as much in Europe and America. Interestingly,uch a phenomenon was not observed in the Taiwanese students. In addition to the use of different assessment tools, doeshe pressure observed in Korea and China from the highly competitive environment explain the drop in divergent feelingn students right after starting high school (Cai & Zhu, 2007). Instead, does the open educational environment in Taiwanxplain the sustained creativity of the Taiwanese high school students? There are still no studies of divergent feeling acrossast Asia, and further research is warranted.

.3. Comparison of divergent thinking and divergent feeling with historic norms

The results of the present study indicated that the developmental trend in divergent thinking was generally smoothern the 2014–2015 period than in 1998: the 7th graders in 2014-15 did not display a significant increase as in 1998, theth graders did not exhibit a steep drop as in 1998, and the 11th graders did not exhibit a steep decrease as in 1998 but

nstead presented an increase. Figural originality was the only category in which more age groups improved in 2014–2015ersus 1998. The scores of figural fluency and figural flexibility in both 2014–2015 and 1998 were level. In comparisonsf the developmental trends in divergent feeling in 2014–2015 and 1994, the former, except for a significant trough in 6thrade, was generally the same as the latter. However, almost all the 4 subscale scores in 2014–2015 were significantly higherhan those in 1994. These significantly higher scores partially supported the hypothesis of the study: between 1994 and014, significant growth occurred in the figural originality of divergent thinking of the Taiwanese students in childhood anddolescence.

According to Chang, Su, and Chen’s study (2015), adolescent’s socioeconomic status was positively correlated with theirreative thinking in Taiwan. In other words, adolescents with lower socioeconomic status may have lower levels of creativehinking. However, the result in this study showed that participants with lower socioeconomic status had higher scoresr no significant difference in both tests of divergent thinking and divergent feeling, even though more participants wereecruited from rural areas than previous studies. The trend was strongly confirmed that contemporary students have higherreativity than students in the past.

Maker et al. (2008) noted that development of creativity is supported when active learning, student choice, access toaried materials, exploration, self-evaluation, problem finding, and problem solving are stressed in the educational envi-onment, and these factors have been key in promoting creative education in Taiwan in the past. In addition to having anfficial document, the White Paper on Creative Education published in 2003, Hui and Lau (2010) believed that the creativeducation policy in Taiwan also includes the multiple levels of creativity development (individual, school, social, industrial,nd cultural) that have been discussed in Taiwan. Taiwan has the highest input of resources, especially from non-governmentrganizations under the executive coordination between industry and the government. Kuo and Wu (2008) studied teachersho participated in the Local Creative Education project; almost every teacher agreed that participating in the creativity

roject helped improve their teaching, the creative design of their classes, the school climate, and the students’ interestsn creativity. As noted by Wu and Albanese (2013) in a review of the outcome of programs to promote creative educationn Taiwan, while the reality has yet to meet expectations, the climate in schools has encouraged an initial flourishing ofreativity. These conditions most likely explain the upward trend in the creative developmental in children and adolescentsn Taiwan from 1994 or 1998 to 2014–2015. However, this creative education in Taiwan uses a bottom-up approach tomprove and promote student creativity in an implicit educational environment, which could explain the lesser growth inivergent thinking from the cognitive perspective. Scott, Leritz, and Mumford (2004) conducted a meta-analysis of 70 papersn creative training and teaching and found that overall, technical thinking training could promote creativity better and thatttitude or behavior are not as effective in enhancing creativity. Scott et al., 2004 believed that effective creativity trainingust (1) engage cognitive skills on a long-term basis in various ways, (2) be supplemented with real-life examples, and (3)

nclude activities applicable to the user’s relevant areas to provide user with application strategies.In addition, the rapid advancement of technology and internet makes people more easily access diverse and a large

mount of information when living in the environment with fast changes. An increasingly open society and democratizationn Taiwan over the past two decades have an impact that people are able to accept diverse opinions, and further appreciatearious kinds of creative activities. Therefore, these environmental factors might influence students’ divergent feeling. Thisrend similarly refer to Csikszentmihalyi’s opinion on changes in society where the creative motivation could be increasedepending on what “gatekeepers” do.

.4. Conclusions

We collected and merged a large amount of data to form a large sample. By comparing the data to the norm built byrevious assessments, we not only could discover the trend of contemporary students’ creativity development at different

ducational levels, but also could investigate the change of creativity potentials and affective characteristics in different eras.he results could be referred to the related education-policy review and improvement, and fill the gap in this research field.

We observed an overall linear increase in creativity potential and tendencies during childhood and adolescence amongtudents in Taiwan, both from the cognitive and affective perspectives. The result in this study was not similar to previous

126 Y.-L. Chang et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 23 (2017) 112–128

studies which showed the phenomenon of creativity slump during childhood and adolescence. (e.g. Chae, 2003; Charles &Runco, 2001; Cheung et al., 2004; Kim, 2011; Lopez et al., 1993; Lubart & Lautrey, 1995; Urban, 1991). In both cognitive oraffective aspects, creativity development is highly influenced by societal culture without universals across eras and cultures.In addition, when comparing present-day students to those in 1994–1998, divergent thinking generally displays an upwardtrend. When evaluating the scores on divergent feeling, the differences lie on the enhancement of overall scores. It suggeststhat societal change has different impacts on divergent thinking and divergent feeling during childhood and adolescence.

Essential points for the results of this study are as follows. First of all, in divergent thinking, it is noteworthy that onlyfigural originality increased significantly. When Kim (2011) compared the TTCT scores from the period of 1998–2008, onlyoriginality increased, whereas all other scores dropped significantly. Kim suggested that the calculated scores of originalityrelied heavily on the norm established many years ago, which had been invalid. This explanation of inflated scores due to theconsideration of rare responses to many popular modern terms or concepts were first proposed by Wu et al. (1999). Second,we did not perform a longitudinal study but instead using a cross-sectional method, which, when studying differences acrossgrade levels, limits the reliability of the grade differences (Kleibeuker et al., 2013). Moreover, there are numerous dimensionsof creativity. The most commonly used indices, divergent thinking and divergent feeling, were used in the present study,although there are many other indices worthy of investigation and comparison in subsequent studies.

Further study is needed to clarify whether the differences from one region to the other, particularly among Korea (Lee &Choi, 2012), mainland China (Shen et al., 2005), and Hong Kong (Lau & Cheung, 2010), are due to the use of different tools, orresulting from social, cultural and educational environment factors. Before we can determine if the study results support theeffectiveness of the promotion of creative education in Taiwan during the previous decade, a more detailed study with morevariables and better control is warranted. Finally, the findings suggest that creative thinking techniques should be integratedinto curricula, and teachers should be provided with more training and development in creative thinking. Teachers couldthen inspire students to apply creative thinking to more complex but real situations.

Acknowledgements

This research is partially supported by the “Aim for the Top University Project” and “Center of Learning Technology forChinese” of National Taiwan Normal University (NTNU), sponsored by the Ministry of Education, Taiwan, R.O.C. and the“International Research-Intensive Center of Excellence Program” of NTNU and Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan,R.O.C. under Grant no. MOST 6 104-2911-I-003-301.

References

Allison, B. N., & Schultz, J. B. (2001). Interpersonal identity formation during early adolescence. Adolescence, 36(143), 509.Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: a componential conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 357–377.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.2.357Basadur, M., & Hausdorf, P. A. (1996). Measuring divergent thinking attitudes related to creative problem solving and innovation management. Creativity

Research Journal, 9, 21–32.Besanc on, M., & Lubart, T. (2008). Differences in the development of creative competencies in children schooled in diverse learning environments.

Learning and Individual Differences, 18(4), 381–389.Brim, O. G., & Kagan, J. (1980). Constancy and change in human development. Harvard University Press.Cai, X.-Y., & Zhu, Y.-J. (2007). The correlation of adolescent’s creative inclination, intelligence and academic achievement. Psychological Development and

Education, 2, 36–41 (Chinese).Camp, G. C. (1994). A longitudinal study of correlates of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 7, 125–144.Casey, B. J., Jones, R. M., & Hare, T. A. (2008). The adolescent brain. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1124(1), 111–126.Cattell, R. B. (1950). The fate of national intelligence: Tests of a thirteen-year prediction. Eugenics Review, 42(3), 136–148.Chae, S. (2003). Adaptation of a picture-type creativity test for pre-school children. Language Testing, 20(2), 178–188.Chan, Y. C., Chen, H.-C., & Lavallee, J. (2013). The impact of geloto- phobia, gelotophilia and katagelasticism on creativity. Humor: International Journal of

Humor Research, 26, 609–628. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/humor-2013-0037Chang, Y.-L., Chen, H.-C., Chen, Y.-H., Chiu, F.-C., Lin, Y.-N., Wang, M.-C., et al. (2013). Nurture of futures imagination and creative talent in senior high

school. Journal of Chinese Creativity, 4, 73–98 (Chinese).Chang, H. J., Wang, C. Y., Chen, H. C., & Chang, K. E. (2014). The analysis of elementary and high school students’ natural and humorous responses patterns

in coping with embarrassing situations. Humor—International Journal of Humor Research, 27(2), 1–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/humor-2013-0059Chang, J. H., Chen, H. C., Hsu, C. C., Chan, Y. C., & Chang, Y. L. (2015). Flexible humor styles and the creative mind: using a typological approach to

investigate the relationship between humor styles and creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 9(3), 306.Chang, J. H., Su, J. C., & Chen, H. C. (2015). Cultural distance between parents’ and children’s creativity: A within-country approach in Taiwan. Cultural

Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 21(3), 477–485. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0037539Charles, R. E., & Runco, M. A. (2001). Developmental trends in the evaluative and divergent thinking of children. Creativity Research Journal, 13, 417–437.Chen, C. Y., Wu, W. T., & Chen, C. C. (2005). The development of creativity in education in Taiwan: A historical review. Bulletin of National Institute of

Education Resources and Research, 30, 97–111 [Chinese].Chen, H.-Y., Chen, Y.-H., Liao, Y.-K., & Zhu, J.-J. (2011). Increased IQ for taiwanese children from 1997 to 2007: Flynn effect investigated. Journal of Research

in Education Sciences, 56(1), 167–191 [Chinese].Cheung, P. C., Lau, S., Chan, D. W., & Wu, W. Y. H. (2004). Creative potential of school children in Hong Kong: Norms of the Wallach–Kogan creativity test

and their implications. Creativity Research Journal, 16(1), 69–78.Claxton, A. F., Pannells, T. C., & Rhoads, P. A. (2005). Developmental trends in the creativity of school-age children. Creativity Research Journal, 17(4),

327–335.

Collins, W. A., Gleason, T., & Sesma, A., Jr. (1997). Internalization, autonomy, and relationships: development during adolescence. In J. E. Grusec, & L.

Kuczynski (Eds.), Parenting and children’s internalization of values: a handbook of contemporary theory (Vol. xxiv) (pp. 78–99). Hoboken, NJ, US: JohnWiley & Sons Inc [439 pp].

Cropley, A. J. (2003). Creativity in education and learning: a guide for teachers and educators. London: Kogan.Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). Society, culture, and person: a systems view of creativity. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

EEFFFF

G

GG

G

GGGHHH

HH

H

J

J

KKK

K

K

KK

L

L

L

L

LL

L

L

M

M

MMNNPPP

P

P

RR

RRR

Y.-L. Chang et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 23 (2017) 112–128 127

dwin, C. S., Emily, J. S., & John, C. H. (2005). The creative personality. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 300–314. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001698620504900404rickson, E. H. (1963). Child and society (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.lynn, J. R. (1984). The mean IQ of Americans: Massive gains 1932 to 1978. Psychological Bulletin, 95(1), 29–51.lynn, J. R. (1987). Massive IQ gains in 14 nations: What IQ tests really measure. Psychological Bulletin, 101(2), 171–191.lynn, J. R. (2006). Tethering the elephant: Capital cases, IQ, and the Flynn effect. Psychology Public Policy, and Law, 12(2), 170–189.urnham, A., Batey, M., Anand, K., & Manfield, J. (2008). Personality, hypomania, intelligence and creativity. Personality and Individual Differences, 44,

1060–1069.eorgsdottir, A. S., Ameel, E., & Lubart, T. I. (2002). Cognitive flexibility and logical reasoning in school aged children. In Paper presented at the XVIIth

biennial meeting of the international society for the study of behavioural development (ISSBD).ray, J. A., Buhusi, C. V., & Schmajuk, N. (1997). The transition from automatic to controlled processing. Neural Networks, 10(7), 1257–1268.ruber, H. E. (1988). The evolving systems approach to creative work. Creativity Research Journal, 1(1), 27–51.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10400418809534285uignard, J., & Lubart, T. (2006). Is It Reasonable to Be Creative? In J. C. Kaufman, & J. Baer (Eds.), Creativity and reason in cognitive development (pp.

269–281). New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press.uilford, J. P. (1956). The structure of intellect. Psychological Bulletin, 53, 267–293.uilford, J. P. (1977). Way beyond the IQ. Creative Education Foundation.uilford, J. P. (1988). Some changes in the structure-of-intellect model. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 48, 1–4.errnstein, R., & Murray, C. (1994). The bell curve: intelligence and class structure in american life. New York: Random House.ill, J. P., & Holmbeck, G. N. (1986). Attachment and autonomy during adolescence. Annals of Child Development, 3(45), 145–189.ocevar, D. (1981). Measurement of creativity: Review and critique. Journal of Personality Assessment, 45, 450–464.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4505 1outz, J. C., & Krug, D. (1995). Assessment of creativity: Resolving a mid-life crisis. Educational Psychology Review, 7, 269–300.siao, C.-C. (2014). Cross-lagged panel correlation and latent growth modeling in the relationship between creativity tendency and technology creativity.

Bulletin of Special Education, 39(2), 87–107.ui, A. N., & Lau, S. (2010). Formulation of policy and strategy in developing creativity education in four Asian Chinese societies: A policy analysis. The

Journal of Creative Behavior, 44(4), 215–235. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2010.tb01334.x/abstract [Retrieved from:]auk, E., Benedek, M., & Neubauer, A. C. (2014). The road to creative achievement: A latent variable model of ability and personality predictors. European

Journal of Personality, 28, 95–105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/per.1941ohnson, C., & Wilbrecht, L. (2011). Juvenile mice show greater flexibility in multiple choice reversal learning than adults. Developmental Cognitive

Neuroscience, 1(4), 540–551.aufman, J. C., Plucker, J. A., & Baer, J. (2008). Essentials of creativity assessment. New York: Wiley.eegan, D. (1996). The foundations of distance education. London: Croom Helm.im, K. H. (2006). Can we trust creativity tests? A review of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT). Creativity Research Journal, 18, 3–14.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1801 2im, K. H. (2011). The creativity crisis: the decrease in creative thinking scores on the Torrance tests of creative thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 23,

285–295. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2011.627805leibeuker, S. W., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Crone, E. A. (2013). The development of creative cognition across adolescence: Distinct trajectories for insight and

divergent thinking: Creative cognition across adolescence. Developmental Science, 16, 2–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2012.01176.xumar, V. K., Kemmler, D., & Holman, E. R. (1997). The creativity styles questionnaire-revised. Creativity Research Journal, 10, 51–58.uo, H. C., & Wu, J. J. (2008). Teacher engagement in the Creative Education Pro- gram and the perceptions of the effectiveness of the program. In Paper

presented at the international centre for innovation in education (ICIE) international conference.au, S., & Cheung, P. C. (2010). Developmental trends of creativity: What twists of turn do boys and girls take at different grades? Creativity Research

Journal, 22, 329–336. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2010.503543ee, K.-H., & Choi, B. (2012). Developmental trends in the creativity of elementary school children. The Journal of the Korean Society for Gifted and Talented,

11(2), 129–146 [Korean].ee, K.-H., & Choi, B. (2013). Developmental trends in the creativity of secondary school students. The Korean Journal of Educational Methodology Studies,

25(1), 317–338 [Korean].ewin, T. (2010). Many states adopt national standards for their schools. The New York Times [Retrieved from:].

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/21/education/21standards.htmlin, C., & Wang, M. (1994). The creativity assessment packet. Taipei, Taiwan: Psychology Inc.opez, E. C., Esquivel, G. B., & Houtz, J. C. (1993). The creative skills of culturally and linguistically diverse gifted students. Creativity Research Journal, 6(4),

401–412.ubart, T. I., & Georgsdottir, A. (2004). Creativity: developmental and cross-cultural issues. In S. Lau, N. N. A. Hui, & Y. C. G. Ng (Eds.), Creativity: when east

meets west (pp. 23–54). Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd.ubart, T. I., & Lautrey, J. (1995). Relationships between creative development and cognitive development. In Paper presented at the seventh european

conference on developmental psychology.addux, W., & Galinsky, A. (2009). Cultural borders and mental barriers: The relationship between living abroad and creativity. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 96(5), 1047–1061. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0014861aker, C. J., Jo, S., & Muammar, O. M. (2008). Development of creativity: the influence of varying levels of implementation of the DISCOVER curriculum

model, a non-traditional pedagogical approach. Learning and Individual Differences, 18(4), 402–417. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2008.03.003ingroni, M. A. (2007). Resolving the IQ paradox: heterosis as a cause of the Flynn effect and other trends. Psychological Review, 114(3), 806–829.umford, M. D., & Gustafson, S. B. (1988). Creativity syndrome: integration, application, and innovation. Psychological Bulletin, 103(1), 27–43.g, A. K. (2001). Why Asians are less creative than Westerners. Singapore: Prentice-Hall.iu, W., & Sternberg, R. J. (2001). Cultural influences on artistic creativity and its evaluation. International Journal of Psychology, 36(4), 269–288.iaget, J. (1970). Science of education and the psychology of the child. New York: Orion.iaget, J. (1976). Piaget’s theory. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.lucker, J. A., & Makel, M. C. (2010). Assessment of creativity. In J. C. Kaufman, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 48–73). New

York: Cambridge University Press.lucker, J. A., & Renzulli, J. S. (1999). Psychometric approaches to the study of human creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 35–61).

Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.lucker, J. A., Beghetto, R. A., & Dow, G. T. (2004). Why isn’t creativity more important to educational psychologists? Potentials, pitfalls, and future

directions in creativity research. Educational Psychologist, 39(2), 83–96.hodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. Phi Delta Kappan, 42, 305–310.imm, S., & Davis, G. A. (1980). Five years of international research with GIFT: An instrument for the identification of creativity. Journal of Creative

Behavior, 14, 35–46.ookey, T. J. (1973). Pennsylvania assessment of creative tendency. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.osenblatt, E., & Winner, E. (1988). The art of children’s drawing. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 3–15.othenberg, A. (1990). Creativity in adolescence. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 13, 415–434.

128 Y.-L. Chang et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 23 (2017) 112–128

Runco, M. A., & Acar, S. (2012). Divergent thinking as an indicator of creative potential. Creativity Research Journal, 24, 66–75.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.652929

Runco, M. A., & Albert, R. S. (1985). The reliability and validity of ideational originality in the divergent thinking of academically gifted and nongiftedchildren. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 45(3), 483–501.

Runco, M. A., & Charles, R. E. (1997). Developmental trends in creative potential and creative performance. In M. A. Runco (Ed.), The creativity researchhandbook (Vol. 1) (pp. 115–152). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Runco, M. A., & Pritzker, S. R. (Eds.). (1999). Encyclopedia of creativity. In. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Runco, M. A. (1989). The creativity of children’s art. Child Study Journal, 19, 177–189.Runco, M. A. (2007). Creativity: theories and themes: research, development and practice. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Academy Press.Runco, M. A. (2008). Commentary: Divergent thinking is not synonymous with creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 2, 93–96.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1931-3896.2.2.93Schooler, C., Mulatu, M. S., & Oates, G. (1999). The continuing effects of substantively complex work on the intellectual functioning of older workers.

Psychology and Aging, 14(3), 483–506.Scott, G., Leritz, L. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2004). The effectiveness of creativity training: A quantitative review. Creativity Research Journal, 16(4), 361–388

[Retrieved from:]. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10400410409534549Shen, J.-L., Wang, X., & Shi, B.-G. (2005). A study on the structure and development of adolescents’ creative tendencies. Psychological Development and

Education, 4, 28–33 (Chinese).Silvia, P. J., Winterstein, B. P., Willse, J. T., Barona, C. M., Cram, J. T., Hess, K. I., et al. (2008). Assessing creativity with divergent thinking tasks: Exploring the

reliability and validity of new subjective scoring methods. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 2, 68–85.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1931-3896.2.2.68

Silvia, P. J., Nusbaum, E. C., Berg, C., Martin, C., & O’Connor, A. (2009). Openness to experience, plasticity, and creativity: Exploring lower-order, high-order,and interactive effects. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 1087–1090. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.04.015

Simonton, D. K. (1984). Genius, creativity, and leadership: Historiometric inquiries. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Simonton, D. K. (2012). Teaching creativity current findings, trends, and controversies in the psychology of creativity. Teaching of Psychology, 39, 217–222.Smith, G., & Carlsson, I. (1985). Creativity in middle and late school years. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 8, 329–343.Smolucha, L. W., & Smolucha, F. C. (1985). A fifth Piagetian stage: The collaboration between analogical and logical thinking in artistic creativity. Visual

Arts Research, 90–99.Spear, L. P. (2000). The adolescent brain and age-related behavioral manifestations. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 24(4), 417–463.Steinberg, L. (2005). Cognitive and affective development in adolescence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(2), 69–74.Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1995). Defying the crowd: cultivating Creativity in a culture of conformity. New York: The Free press.The Ministry of Education of Taiwan, 2001. General guidelines of grade 1–9 curriculum of elementary and junior high school, Taipei: Author.Torrance, E. P. (1968a). A longitudinal examination of the fourth grade slump in creativity. Gifted Child Quarterly, 12(4), 195–199. Retrieved from:.

http://gcq.sagepub.com/content/12/4/195.shortTorrance, E. P. (1968b). A longitudinal examination of the fourth-grade slump in creativity. Gifted Child Quarterly, 12, 195–199.Torrance, E. P. (1974). Torrance tests of creativity thinking. Lexington, MA: Personnel Press.Torrance, E. P. (1977). Discovery and nurturance of giftedness in the culturally different. Reston, VA: Council on Exceptional Children.Treffinger, D. J., Isaksen, S. G., & Firestein, R. L. (1983). Theoretical perspectives on creative learning and its facilitation: An overview. Journal of Creative

Behavior, 17, 9–17.Tuddenham, R. D. (1948). Soldier intelligence in world wars I and II. American Psychologist, 3(2), 54–56.Urban, K. K. (1991). On the development of creativity in children. Creativity Research Journal, 4, 177–191.Vincent, A. S., Decker, B. P., & Mumford, M. D. (2002). Divergent thinking, intelligence, and expertise: A test of alternative models. Creativity Research

Journal, 14(2), 163–178. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15326934CRJ1402 4Williams, J. E., Saiz, J. L., FormyDuval, D. L., Munick, M. L., Fogle, E. E., Adom, A., et al. (1995). Cross-cultural variation in the importance of psychological

characteristics: A seven-country study. International Journal of Psychology, 30(5), 529–550.Williams, F. E. (1969). Models for encouraging creativity in the classroom by integrating cognitive-affective behaviors. Educational Technology, 9(12), 7–13.Williams, F. E. (1980). The creativity assessment packet. Chesterfield, MO: Psychologists and Educators Inc.Wu, J.-J., & Albanese, D. (2010). Asian creativity, chapter one: Creativity across three Chinese societies. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 5, 150–154.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2010.10.002

Wu, J.-J., & Albanese, D. L. (2013). Imagination and creativity: wellsprings and streams of education – the Taiwan experience. Educational Psychology,

33(5), 561–581. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2013.813689Wu, J.-J., Chen, F. Y., Kuo, C. C., Lin, W. W., Lau, S. H., & Chen, Y. H. (1999). New test of creative thinking. Taipei, Taiwan: Ministry of Education.Zeng, L., Proctor, R. W., & Salvendy, G. (2011). Can traditional divergent thinking tests be trusted in measuring and predicting real-world creativity?

Creativity Research Journal, 23, 24–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2011.545713