IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/intell/v76y2019ics0160289619301667.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The proportion and creativity of “old” and “new” ideas: Are they related to fluid intelligence?

Author

Listed:
  • Miroshnik, Kirill G.
  • Shcherbakova, Olga V.

Abstract

The question about the relationship between intellectual and creative abilities still remains unresolved. One potential advance in this area of research could be associated with the use of novel methods of divergent thinking assessment. One of the promising tools for assessment of divergent thinking appears to be the old/new scoring method. This study aimed to investigate the role of fluid intelligence in generating “old” (retrieved from memory) and “new” (generated on the spot) ideas distinguished by the old/new scoring method. Two divergent thinking tasks (Guilford's Alternate Uses for a newspaper and a wooden ruler), which were later scored for creativity (via subjective ratings) and the proportion of new ideas, were administered to 115 university students. Participants then completed three tests of fluid intelligence. Results showed that fluid intelligence correlated weakly with both the proportion and creativity of old and new ideas. However, there was a tendency for a closer association of fluid intelligence with the creativity of new ideas but not old ones. We also replicated the serial order effect showing that new ideas rated by both judges and participants as more creative tend to appear later in a response set. However, we did not find any support for the idea that fluid intelligence moderated the serial order effect. Overall, the application of the old/new scoring method did not reveal any complex relationship between fluid intelligence and the proportion and creativity of old and new ideas.

Suggested Citation

  • Miroshnik, Kirill G. & Shcherbakova, Olga V., 2019. "The proportion and creativity of “old” and “new” ideas: Are they related to fluid intelligence?," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:intell:v:76:y:2019:i:c:s0160289619301667
    DOI: 10.1016/j.intell.2019.101384
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289619301667
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.intell.2019.101384?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Tatel, Corey E. & Tidler, Zachary R. & Ackerman, Phillip L., 2022. "Process differences as a function of test modifications: Construct validity of Raven's advanced progressive matrices under standard, abbreviated and/or speeded conditions – A meta-analysis," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    2. Miroshnik, Kirill G. & Forthmann, Boris & Karwowski, Maciej & Benedek, Mathias, 2023. "The relationship of divergent thinking with broad retrieval ability and processing speed: A meta-analysis," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:intell:v:76:y:2019:i:c:s0160289619301667. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/intelligence .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.