Creativity with 3^rd and 5^th Graders: The effects of standards of production and extrinsic rewards

An introduction to present research

 Daniel M. Birdwhistell ‘01

***Author’s note: At the time of publication pre-testing for both the 3^rd and 5^th grade testing group had been completed; thus, it is possible that some minor changes in methodology have occurred or are presently occurring as the second phase of this experiment is being conducted. This document simply reflects the present day research and future plan of the author. The final report with results and discussion will be completed by Summer, 2000.

Rewards lessen creativity. This generalization is commonly accepted as fact and a strong base of research supports this generalization; however, much of this research was flawed in that there was not an explicit link between reward and creative performance. In addition, no research to this date has been done to explore the effect of quantitative standards of production on generalized creativity. The present research is designed to offer additional evidence for the role of explicit extrinsic rewards on creativity while also determining the effects of quantitative standards of production both with and without an extrinsic reward. A 2 X 2 X 5 factorial design is based on the presence or absence of a standard or reward using the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking Figural Form A and B. This test allows for an overall, norm-referenced measure of creative thinking (CI) as well as five specific measures: fluency, originality, elaboration, resistance to closure, and abstractness of title. The study is being conducted with third and fifth grade students.

The work of Guilford (1968) and Wallach & Kogan (1965) established creative performance as the generation of original behavior that meets a standard of quality or utility. Runco (1991) and Winston & Baker (1985) went on to include divergent thinking, a major aspect of creative performance, as producing varied responses to a problem or question has multiple alternative solutions. Thus, when considering the relationship between creativity and reward we must consider two standpoints: that of the behaviorist and that of the cognitive investigator. The first camp, the behaviorists, have traditionally argued that divergent thinking is enhanced by systematic rewards; one review of twenty behaviorally oriented studies showed that repeated reward for novel and original behavior increases the frequency of creative performance (Winston & Baker, 1985). These behaviorists assert that rewarding divergent thinking develops a generalized orientation toward divergent thought (Maltzman, 1960) and thus creative performance has been shown to transfer to other tasks following this training (Goetz, 1982, 1989). This evidence supports the theory of learned industriousness as developed by Eisenberger (1992). This theory holds that reinforcement reduces the unpleasantness of any type of physical or cognitive effort, including effort required for divergent thought.

Cognitive interpretations, on the other hand, assume that the expectation of reward lessens creativity on both the present and subsequent task. They argue that the reward lessens creativity as it causes the tasks to be "defined more narrowly...simply as a means to an end rather than as an opportunity for exploration and play" (Amabile & Cheek, 1988, p. 60). It is argued that such extrinsic motivators distract attention from the activity and thereby reduce the ability of the subject to be spontaneous and flexible in thought and production (Amabile, 1983, 1990; Amabile and Cheek, 1988; Amabile, Hennessy, & Grossmann, 1986; Condry, 1977; McGraw, 1978; see also Baslam & Bondy, 1983; Reiss & Sushinsky, 1975, 1976; Sternberg & Lubart, 1991).

These two camps have produced a base of research that supports each side but much of the research has been flawed in that none of the studies save the 1998 study by Eisenberger investigated the effects of promised reward on creativity when there was explicit information provided that the reward depended on creative performance. Only one study has been conducted that included this explicit link and this study proved that there are increased levels of creative production both when there is either a) preliminary divergent-thinking training or b) explicit instructions in the current task concerning the necessity of creativity for reward (Eisenberger, Armeli, & Pretz, 1998). Thus, these findings have stated that the explicit promise of reward for creative performance readily increases creativity.

In addition to the relationship between reward and creativity we have elected to look at the relationship between a) a quantitative standard of production and creativity and b) a quantitative standard of production and creativity in the face of a reward. No studies have to this date been conducted to explore either relationship. Thus, the present research has been formed to explore the nature of the relationship between an explicit reward and immediate creative performance and the relationship between a quantitative standard level of production and immediate creative performance. Each relationship will be considered with respect to a subject’s normal level of creative production. Thus, because of the complexity of our factors we elected to use a complete, norm-referenced measure for creativity: the Creativity Index (CI) as obtained through the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking Figural Forms A and B.

While the Eisenberger, Armeli, & Pretz (1998) study was strong in its attention to an explicit link between reward and creative performance, the chosen measures were limited in that the testing materials allowed for only a partial measure of creative ability. The authors used an adaption of one section of the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking (Torrance, 1974) known as the Circle Task. This section of the test provides the measures of fluency, originality, and elaboration specific to the repeated presentation of a similar stimulus; this task alone appeals to the creative individuals tendency disrupt structure and make something new but neglects the tendency to find elaborate meaning in a meaningless object and to structure and integrate partially complete and ambiguous stimuli. The complete TTCT Figural Form A and B, on the other hand, uses three tasks–Picture Construction, Picture Completion, and Circles and Lines–which allow for the complete measure of fluency, originality, and elaboration across types of creative performance while also allowing for two remaining measures: Resistance to Closure and Abstractness of Titles. These five measures combine to form the Creativity Index (CI) which has been norm-referenced. Thus, to assess the effects of the reward and standard we elected to administer the entire TTCT in both phases of testing.

Students will be divided in four main conditions after pre-testing for "high" (Group 1) and "low" (Group 2) creativity. The conditions will be a) no standard, no reward; b) standard, no reward; c) no standard, reward; d) standard, reward. We will measure overall creative performance through the CI and we will also consider measures of fluency, originality, elaboration, resistance to closure, and abstractness of titles. Among participants in condition A we predict that there will be relatively little changes in performance from the pre-testing for both Group 1 and 2 on both CI and the individual measures. Further, among participants in condition B we predict that our findings will follow those of Eisenberger, Armeli, & Pretz (1998) and illustrate a strong correlation between reward and creative performance for both levels of creativity as measured by the CI. Among participants in condition C we predict that there will be a negative overall affect on creativity for both levels. Furthermore, among participants in condition D we predict that there will be increased creative performance with the lower levels of creativity and decreased performance with higher levels of creative ability.

Participants:

Forty-eight third grade students and forty-eight fifth grade students were selected from three different public elementary schools in a rural town in the Southeastern United States. Participants were mostly Caucasian. Initial consent was granted by each elementary school and secondary consent was granted by the parent/guardian of each participant through an active consent form. Subjects were selected and labeled as high or low-creativity students based on pre-testing; a total of 140 students were involved in the pre-testing. Pre-testing for the 3^rd grade group was conducted during early and mid-Winter and during late Winter for the 5^th grade group; final testing was done for both groups during the month of March. Participants were not directly compensated for their involvement.

Testing Materials:

Figural form A and B of the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking (Scholastic Testing Service, Inc.) were used for the present research; form A was used in the pre-testing, form B in the main testing. This measure first emerged in 1966 under Personnel Services, Inc. after extensive pilot testing in different classroom environments; the test was bought by Scholastic Testing Service, Inc. in the 1980s; STS conducted a national study to established norms for the test in 1990 and again in 1996. The current norms are based on a sample of 55,600 subjects ranging from students in kindergarten to individuals over 60 years of age. The test can be administered to all educational and age levels.

The test aims at measuring a variety of different creative tendencies through its three tasks. The first task, Picture Construction, involves an arbitrary shape (jellybean or teardrop) and calls for the participant to find purpose for this object by creating an imaginative story using this object as the center of the image. This darkened shape is placed at a diagonal at the center of the page. This task measures the person’s ability to find purpose in a meaningless object by elaborating upon the initial object to develop an overall purpose. The second task, Picture Completion, gives the opportunity for in-depth presentation of a single object, scene, or situation through presenting ten incomplete pictures. This task calls into play the tendency towards structuring and integrating. Each incomplete picture is meant to create a tension for the subject which must be controlled long enough to make the mental leap necessary to lead him past the obvious completion of the picture: a simple straight or curved line of closure. The subjects are encouraged to tell a story through the drawing which leads the subject towards elaborate responses. The final task, Lines and Circles, encourages the creative tendency to disrupt structure and make something new. Figural Form A uses 30 pairs of straight lines while Figural Form B uses 30 small circles. The subjects are instructed to make an original picture out of each pair of straight lines or each circle. This task forces the subject to return to the same stimulus and perceive it differently each time. The combination of these three tasks yields five norm-referenced measures: fluency, originality, elaboration, abstractness of title, and resistance to premature closure. These measures combine to form the Creativity Index (CI).

Procedure:

We administered the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking, Figural Form A to fifty-nine 3^rd grade students an N 5^th grade students. Students were seated randomly in a classroom and their desks were placed at least seven feet apart. Special care was taken to ensure that participants would not be able to see the work of the other participants. Once all subjects were seated, test booklets were passed out and the students were instructed to leave the booklet closed. Students were instructed to raise their hands if they had a particular question during each task. They were also instructed to refrain from communicating with the other students during the testing; this was stressed in order to ensure each students’ work was his own. When all questions had been answered the subjects were instructed to open the test booklet to the first page and wait for the directions to be read. The original directions were read with each task. Participants were given a one-minute break between each task. At the conclusion of the testing period all testing booklets were collected and the participants were thanked for their participation.

Forty-eight students from each grade were then selected based on their scoring in the "high" or "low" range for the Creativity Index (CI) percentile on the Form A. The sample in each group will be evenly divided into four groups of twelve; six "high creativity" subjects and six "low creativity" subjects will make up each group. We will then administer the TTCT Figural Form B. Because three different schools were used in the pre-testing, testing groups will likely range from 3-7 participants for each testing period. The test will be administered as it was with Form A with slight modifications in the directions for three of the four groups (see Appendix A).

Each group will be randomly assigned to one of the following four conditions based on a the existence or non-existence of a fluency standard and the existence or non-existence of an extrinsic reward: 1) no standard/no reward, 2) standard/no reward, 3) no standard/reward, and 4) standard/reward. In the standard/reward condition, receiving the reward was not contingent upon successfully meeting the standard but in simply following the directions which call for creative production.

The fluency standard condition called for a base level of quantitative production for the Picture Completion and Circles and Lines tasks; the TTCT rejects the scoring of meaningless or ambiguous responses so the quantitative standard is indirectly tied to a qualitative standard. This standard was derived from calculating the average fluency levels for the subjects based on pre-testing. The standard for Picture Completion was (N) and for Lines and Circles the standard was (N); no fluency standard will be used for Picture Construction because the task structure does not allow for a fluency measure. The reward condition involves a promise of a reward upon completion of all three tasks irrespective of performance.

For condition Two, Three, and Four, emphasis will be placed on the standard and/or reward by repeating the standard and/or promise of a reward at the end of the directions. During each ten-minute task, subjects will also be reminded of the standard and/or the reward three times during the task. At the conclusion of the Lines and Circles task, all subjects will be instructed to close their test booklets. The booklets will then be collected.

Subjects in all conditions will receive positive feedback irrespective of performance. All students involved in the testing will ultimately receive a reward (tootsie-roll pop) at the end of the day; the reward is to be given by each student’s individual teacher.

Measures:

The TTCT has been proven to be a reliable test for measuring creative thinking abilities; the test has been shown to have a .51 correlation with future creative achievement. The test offers individual measures for fluency, originality, elaboration, resistance to closure, and abstractness of title as well as offering an overall Creativity Index (CI). Each of these scores are norm-referenced and thus we are able to find national percentiles for each measure.

Fluency represents the subject’s ability to produce a large number of figural images; this score, which is measured only for Picture Completion and Lines and Circles, involves a simple count of the number of relevant images. Nonsense images are not counted. Originality reflects the subject’s ability to produce unique or uncommon responses that require creative strength. Scoring for this measure has been streamlined by counting the most common responses as 0 and the other responses as 1; a list of the most common responses is provided by STS. Elaboration reflects the subject’s ability to develop and elaborate current ideas; scoring has been greatly streamlined as the scorer estimates the number of details within six set limits determined by normative data. Abstractness of title is based on the idea that creativity requires one to sense the essence of a problem and be able to transfer this through a verbal response or connection to the image. This measure is defended on grounds that it requires transformation of figural information to another modality. The last measure, resistance to premature closure is based on the assumption that creative thinking requires one to resist the tendency to find the simplest solution when processing information. The last two measures were added by STS when they adopted the test.

The norm-referencing of the TTCT has allowed for a breakdown of each rating for grade and age levels. The combination of these five measures is used to produce the average standards score (ASS). The ASS is used to find the Creativity Index (CI) which offers a numeric representation of the subject’s overall creative thinking ability.

Scoring for the pre-test was done by the authors using the Scoring Manual; scoring for the main testing was completed by the Scholastic Scoring Service.

Current References

Amabile, T.M (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Amabile, T.M. (1990). With you, without you: The social psychology of creativity, and beyond. In M.A. Runcon & R.S. Albert (Eds.), Theories of creativity: Newbury Park, CA: Sage

Amabile, T.M., & Cheek, J.M. (1988). Microscopic and macroscopic creativity. Journal of Social and Biological Structures, 11, 57-60.

Amabile, T.M., Hennessey, B. A., & Grossman, B. S. (1986). Social influences on creativity: The effects of contracted-for reward. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 14-23.

Balsom, P. D., & Bondy, A. S. (1983). The negative side effects of reward. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 16, 283-296.

Condry, J. (1977). Enemies of exploration: Self-initiated versus other-initiated learning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 459-477. 

Eisenberger, R. (1992). Learned industriousness. Psychological Review, 99, 248-267.

Eisenberger, R., Armel, S., & Pretz, J. (1998). Can the promise of reward increase creativity? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 704-715.

Goetz, E. M. (1989). The teaching of creativity to preschool children: The behavior analysis approach. In J. A. Glover, R. R. Ronning, & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 411-428). New York: Plenum Press.

Goetz, E. M. (1982). A review of functional analyses of preschool children’s creative behaviors. Education and Treatment of Children, 5, 157-177.

Guilford, J. P. (1968). Intelligence, creativity and their educational implications. San Diego, CA: Robert R. Knapp.

Maltzman, I. (1960). On the training of originality. Psychological Review, 67, 229-242.

McGraw, K. O. (1978). The decremental effects of reward on performance: A literature review and a prediction model. In M. R. Lepper & D. Greene (Eds.), The hidden costs of reward. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Reiss, S., & Sushinsky, L. (1975). Overjustification, competing responses, and the acquisition of intrinsic interest. 	Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 1116-1125.

Reiss, S., & Sushinsky, L. (1976). The competing response hypothesis of decreased play effects: A reply to Lepper and Greene. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 233-245.

Runco, M. A. (1991). Divergent thinking. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T.I. (1991). An investment theory of creativity and its development. Human Development, 34, 1-31.

Torrance, E.P. (1974). Torrance test of creative thinking. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.

 Wallach, M. A., & Kogan, N. (1965). Modes of thinking in young children. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

 Winston, A. S., & Baker, J. E. (1985). Behavior analytic studies of creativity: A critical review. The Behavior Analyst, 8, 191-205.