This article was downloaded by: [Moskow State Univ Bibliote]

On: 17 February 2014, At: 12:14

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Creativity Research Journal

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hcrj20

Gender Differences in Divergent Thinking: Use of the

Test of Creative Thinking-Drawing Production on an
Egyptian Sample
a b
Emam Moustafa Sayed & Ahmed Hassan Hemdan Mohamed
a
National Research Center for Giftedness and Creativity, King Faisal University, Al-Ahsaa ,
Saudi Arabia
b
College of Education, Sultan Qaboos University , Oman
Published online: 17 May 2013.

To cite this article: Emam Moustafa Sayed & Ahmed Hassan Hemdan Mohamed (2013) Gender Differences in Divergent
Thinking: Use of the Test of Creative Thinking-Drawing Production on an Egyptian Sample, Creativity Research Journal, 25:2,
222-227, DOI: 10.1080/10400419.2013.783760

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2013.783760

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 CREATIVITY RESEARCH JOURNAL, 25(2), 222–227, 2013
Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1040-0419 print=1532-6934 online
DOI: 10.1080/10400419.2013.783760

RESEARCH NOTE

Gender Differences in Divergent Thinking:

Use of the Test of Creative Thinking-Drawing
Production on an Egyptian Sample
Emam Moustafa Sayed
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 12:14 17 February 2014

National Research Center for Giftedness and Creativity, King Faisal University,
Al-Ahsaa, Saudi Arabia

Ahmed Hassan Hemdan Mohamed

College of Education, Sultan Qaboos University, Oman

The issue of gender differences in creativity has been a controversial and much-disputed
subject for decades. The purpose of this study was to explore gender differences in diver-
gent thinking and the effect of gender-grade level interaction on divergent thinking. The
sample consisted of 901 (367 boys and 534 girls), from K to 6, who were recruited from 7
coeducational schools in various rural and urban school districts in southern Egypt. The
students’ divergent thinking was assessed using the Test of Creative Thinking-Drawing
Production (TCT-DP), a nonverbal measure of creative potential. The results of the
study indicated no gender differences in divergent thinking, but the grade level effect
was statistically significant, as was the interaction effect between gender and grade level
(in 3 of the TCT-DP subscales).

Divergent thinking refers to the individual’s ability
to produce diverse, unique, or unusual ideas when
prompted with an open-ended question or activity
(Runco, Dow, & Smith, 2006) and is used as an assess-
ment of students’ creativity in many educational
contexts (e.g., access to gifted and talented programs;
Baer, 1994). The assessment of divergent thinking
included the use of tests, examination of the creativity
of actual products (e.g., poems, stories, and collage
making), self-assessments of creativity, and rating of
teachers or peers (Baer, 1999; Baer & Kaufman, 2008).
The study of gender differences in divergent thinking
has been controversial and much disputed subject
within the field of creativity for decades. Evidence of
Correspondence should be sent to Ahmed Hassan Hemdan
Mohamed, Psychology Department, College of Education, Sultan
Qaboos University, PO Box 32, PC 123, Al-Khodh, Oman. E-mail:
amohamed@squ.edu.om
gender differences in creativity was presented from
several viewpoints.
Although there were various gender differences in
previous studies, with different methodologies, techni-
ques and samples, a relative equality existed between
the genders in creative ability despite the substantial evi-
dence of differences in the areas of strength (Baer &
Kaufman, 2008). Questions have been raised about the
ability of divergent thinking tests to predict actual cre-
ative products as there has been a significant difference
in real-world creative accomplishment (Simonton, 1994).
Different theories have looked at the gender differences
in creative achievement. For example, Abra and Valentine-
French (1991) highlighted both nature and nurture to
account for such differences and argued that other factors
were involved in the differences debate ranging from spe-
cific cognitive abilities to differences in competitiveness.
Vernon (1989) attributed the existence of gender differences
in creativity mainly to genetic factors. Other developmental
approaches explained gender differences in creativity as

related to the onset of exploratory behavior in early child-
hood (Singer & Singer, 1990). Baer and Kaufman (2008)
stated that a difference exists between the environment
where men’s and women’s creative performance was
judged. Moreover, factors such as societal expectations
from both genders, and the exclusion of women from spe-
cific fields, had jeopardized women from excelling in all
domains. They also believed that this factor was responsible
for limiting women’s accomplishment in creativity.
About 100 studies compared the divergent thinking
scores between men and women. Nearly 50% of these stu-
dies reported no gender differences (Baer, 1998). No gender
differences have been reported in the studies of divergent
thinking using Wallach and Kogan battery in 5th–8th
graders (Runco, 1986), divergent thinking test in 114 4th-
to 6th-grade students (Gaynor & Runco, 1992), Wallach-
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 12:14 17 February 2014
Kogan creativity test in 1,418 students ranging from 1st
to 9th grade (Cheung, Lau, Chan, & Wu, 2004), and Diver-
gent Movement Ability Test in preschool and elementary
school children (Zachapoulou & Makri, 2005). Men scored
higher than women in the studies of Tegano and Moran
(1989) using multidimensional stimulus fluency measure
with a sample of preschool, 1st, and 3rd graders. Mixed
results were obtained by He and Wong (2011) using the
Test of Creative Thinking-Drawing Production (TCT-DP)
in a sample of 985 school children, Dudek, Strobel, and
Runco (1993) using the verbal and figural forms of the
TTCT with 1,445 5th and 6th graders, and Chan et al.,
(2001) using Wallach-Kogan ideational fluency test with
462 elementary students. Cheung and Lau (2010) con-
cluded that girls in junior high grades excelled boys in ver-
bal flexibility, figural flexibility, figural uniqueness, and
figural unusualness using the electronic Wallach-Kogan
creativity tests in a sample of 2,476 4th to 9th graders
and Misra (2003) found female superiority using Openness
to experience task with 156 Indian students.
This study had three advantages. First, the TCT-DP
had the advantage of culture fairness. The test has been
used in several cultures as a measure of creative thinking.
Second, interactions between gender and grade were stud-
ied. Far too little attention has been paid to study the gen-
der differences across grade levels in the preschool and
elementary school in creative thinking. The only study that
used the TCT-DP in the investigation of gender differences
was that of He and Wong (2011), in which they studied the
gender differences based on the analyses of variability.
Third, the study used an age rage (K–6). Most of the
research in this area was limited to two or three grade levels.
Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine the
effect of both gender and grade levels on the divergent
thinking scores of preschool and elementary school chil-
dren using the TCT-D as a fairly recent instrument of cre-
ative potential. A related purpose was to examine the effect
of grade level and the interaction gender-grade level on
divergent thinking.
GENDER DIFFERENCES IN DIVERGENT THINKING 223
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Participants
A total of 901 (367 boys and 534 girls) from six grade
levels (KG2-6) between the ages of 5 and 12 years were
randomly selected from seven coeducational schools in
various rural and urban school districts of a city located
in the south of Egypt. Most of the students in these
schools came from middle-class backgrounds. The mean
age of the sample was 9.04 with an SD of 2.64. Among
the 901 students, 55 were in KG2 (6.1%), 42 in grade 1
(4.66%), 131 in grade 2 (14.53%), 194 in grade 3
(21.53%), 98 in grade 4 (10.87%), 299 in grade 5
(33.18%), and 82 in grade 6 (9.1%). The gender and grade
levels represented independent variables in this study.
Instrument—TCT-DP
This test was developed by Urban and Jellen (1996). It is
widely used as a measure of creative potential based on
constrained production of figural elements into certain
drawings. The task entailed a sheet including five figural
or graphical elements inside a rectangular frame and one
element outside the frame. The students were prompted
to make a drawing(s) using the elements or fragments
as they want. Fourteen criteria were used to evaluate
the drawings. These criteria are: (a) the use or extension
of the six graphic elements (continuations or CN); (b)
changes in the six fragments (completions or CM); (c)
the number of new items or figures (new elements or
NE); (d) the number of connections made within the
six fragments (Connections made with a line or CI); (e)
the involvement of the six fragments to produce a theme
(Connections made to produce a theme or Cth); (f) the
use of the fragment (small square) outside the rectangu-
lar frame (boundary-breaking, fragment-dependent or
BFD); (g) the use of elements outside the frame except
for the small square (boundary-breaking, fragment-
independent or BFI); (h) the use of three-dimensional
technique in the drawing (perspective or PE); (i) the use
of humor or emotional responses (humor or HU); (10)
the unconventional use of elements and is scored in four
ways (unconventionality), which consists of Uca (manip-
ulations of the elements), Ucb (abstract drawings), Ucc
(atypical combinations of figures and symbols), and
Ucd (non-stereotypical use of a specific element). The
speed score was not applied in this study as students were
given 15 min to complete the drawing. The first nine
criteria were scored using a rubric ranging from 0 to 6
points. The unconventionality score (four criteria) was
scored using a rubric ranging from 0 to 3 points.
Urban (1991) reported satisfactory to interscorer
correlations, discriminant and convergent validity. The
reliability of the TCT-DP was investigated in several
 224 SAYED AND MOHAMED

studies. For example, Urban and Jellen (1996) obtained and Jellen (1996). The SPSS was used to analyze the
an acceptable interrater reliability (r ¼ .89-.97). data. Two statistical analyses were used, namely,
Wolanska and Necka (1990; cited in Urban & Jellen, multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVA) and
1996) obtained a significant moderate correlation Pearson Product Moment Correlation.
(r ¼ .46) using retest reliability. In this study, a moderate
Cronbach alpha was obtained (a ¼ .63, n ¼ 901). The
issue of the validity of the TCT-DP has been contro-
RESULTS
versial because no comparable creativity tools existed.
For example, they argued that the test has a discriminant
Means and standard deviations of the TCT-DP subscales
validity because of the difference between creativity
and total score for KG1 to grade 6 are shown in Table 1.
construct as measured by the test and intelligence repre-
MANOVA were performed to test the effect of gender
sented by IQ tests. Cross-cultural validity has been
and grade levels on the 13 evaluation criteria and the
reported in several studies. Urban and Jellen (1996)
total score to control for inflated Type I error. The
argued that the test is culture fair and sensitive. The
F-statistic associated with Pillai’s Trace in MANOVA
most prominent study involved different countries (e.g.,
was examined. Subsequent univariate analyses of vari-
Cameroon, Zimbabwe, India, Indonesia, United States
ance was conducted if the main effect was significant.
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 12:14 17 February 2014

of America, Nigeria, etc.). Also, Chae (2003), in a

Korean sample, found comparable results to the original
results reported by TCT-DP developers. Likewise,
Dollinger, Urban, and James (2004) found evidence of
convergent and discriminant validity of the instrument.
Procedure
Assistant researchers were recruited to obtain informed
consents from the students and parents and were trained
to administer the test according to the instructions of the
manual. Following informed consent procedure, the stu-
dents were instructed to complete the TCT-DP. The test
was administered in groups inside the classrooms by
trained personnel recruited for the administration and
who received extensive training on the evaluation criteria
based on the test manual. Then, they scored the test
sheets according to 13 criteria as described in Urban
Post hoc (Bonferonni) was then conducted. The effect
of gender was not statistically significant. The main effect
of grade level was statistically significant, F(12, 886) ¼
15.38, p < .001, g2 ¼ .21. Therefore, subsequent univari-
ate analyses and post hoc tests were conducted for the
grade level. The results are shown in Table 2. The multi-
variate tests yielded significant grade differences for the
total score of the TCT-DP, F(6, 886) ¼ 22.99, p < .00,
g2 ¼ .13. A Subsequent Bonferonni test indicated that
significant differences were found between KG1 and
KG2, KG1 and grade 6, KG2 and grade 2, KG2 and
grade 3, KG2 and grade 4, KG2 and grade 5, KG2
and grade 6, grade 2 and grade 6, grade 3 and grade 6,
grade 4 and grade 6, grade 5 and grade 6. Pairwise com-
parisons of the TCT-DP total score are reported in
Table 3. The interaction effect was statistically signifi-
cant. Three of the TCT-DP subscales were statistically
significant. These subscales were Cm, F(6, 886) ¼ 3.77,

TABLE 1
Means, Standard Deviations, and F Values for Males and Females in the Test of Creative Thinking-Drawing
Production Subscores and Total Score

Males (N ¼ 367) Females (N ¼ 534)

Subscales M SD M SD F

Continuations 4.32 .96 4.47 .82 1.58

Completions 2.34 1.79 2.13 1.85 1.998
New elements .88 1.05 .92 1.11 0.053
Connections [Line] 1.37 1.46 1.79 1.64 0.237
Connections [Theme] .48 1.02 .62 1.07 0.322
Boundary-breaking [Fragment-dependent] .27 .87 .22 .81 0.176
Boundary-breaking [Fragment-independent] .17 .81 .18 .93 0.019
Perspective .77 1.07 .90 1.23 0.006
Humor .75 1.05 .98 1.20 0.326
Unconventionality [a] .32 .56 .48 .69 3.345
Unconventionality [b] .63 .85 .83 .85 0.814
Unconventionality [c] .81 1.04 .84 .97 0.366
Unconventionality [d] .14 .38 .20 .45 1.603
Total score 15.48 5.06 17.16 6.46 0.553
 GENDER DIFFERENCES IN DIVERGENT THINKING 225

TABLE 2
Means, Standard Deviations, and F Values of the TCT-DP Subscales and Total Score Across the Grade Levels

KG 2 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6

Subscale M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD F g2 partial

Cn Males 3.60 1.63 3.61 1.19 4.73 .65 4.33 .93 4.33 .69 4.31 .81 4.93 .25
Females 4.12 1.33 3.46 1.10 4.72 .62 4.42 .76 4.48 .67 4.54 .80 4.74 .61
Total 3.83 1.51 3.52 1.13 4.72 .63 4.38 .83 4.43 .68 4.45 .81 4.78 .56 16.79


.102
Cm Males 2.87 1.48 2.50 1.24 2.76 2.06 2.49 2.09 1.06 1.14 1.86 1.47 4.20 1.52
Females 3.36 1.38 2.50 .98 1.91 2.11 1.69 1.95 2.09 1.42 2.08 1.63 3.14 2.21
Total 3.09 1.44 2.50 1.08 2.33 2.12 2.03 2.04 1.92 1.34 1.99 1.57 3.34 2.13 9.88


.063
Nee Males 1.10 1.51 .17 .38 .25 .51 .88 1.01 .33 .73 1.42 .99 .93 1.16
Females .64 1.15 .29 .46 .33 .81 .86 1.12 .53 .92 1.26 1.25 1.29 1.20
Total .89 1.37 .24 .43 .29 .67 .87 1.07 .46 .87 1.33 1.07 1.23 1.19 23.47


.137
CI Males 1.01 1.50 .22 .43 .98 1.18 1.61 1.35 1.02 1.29 1.48 1.46 3.86 .99
Females .52 1.08 .08 .28 1.70 1.78 1.88 1.41 .86 1.28 1.83 1.47 3.70 1.27
Total 3.09 1.44 2.50 1.08 2.32 2.12 2.03 2.04 1.92 1.34 1.99 1.57 2.34 2.13 35.76


.195
CTH Males 1.03 1.62 .28 .46 .28 .57 .28 .65 .61 1.17 .55 1.03 .80 1.61
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 12:14 17 February 2014

Females .56 1.04 .17 .38 .62 .94 .53 .96 .50 1.12 .58 1.05 1.22 1.42
Total .82 1.40 .21 .41 .45 .79 .42 .85 .54 1.13 .57 1.04 1.14 1.45 3.67


.024
BFD Males .37 1.06 .01 .12 .62 1.14 .19 .77 .06 .24 .22 .87 .20 .77
Females .32 .85 .03 .42 .31 .89 .07 .44 .11 .54 .31 .90 .33 1.22
Total .34 .97 .03 .23 .47 1.03 .12 .61 .12 .45 .27 .89 .31 1.15 3.42


.023
BFI Males .70 1.31 .28 .75 .05 .27 .26 1.17 .26 1.16 .02 .32 .88 .62
Females .28 .84 .17 .56 .03 .24 .54 1.72 .03 .21 .08 .52 .21 .86
Total .51 1.13 .21 .64 .04 .26 .42 1.51 .05 .32 .08 .56 .17 .78 5.04


.033
PE Males .67 1.21 .06 .20 .52 .84 .81 .97 1.21 1.45 .77 1.06 1.80 1.14

KG1 KG2 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6

Subscale M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD F g2 partial

Females .20 .50 .06 .33 .45 .86 .75 1.07 1.84 1.52 .85 1.09 1.63 1.44
Total .45 .98 .36 .24 .48 .84 .77 1.02 1.63 1.52 .82 1.08 1.65 1.38 18.59


.112
Hu Males .50 1.01 .65 .42 .55 .95 .47 .82 1.51 1.46 .83 1.47 .75 1.05
Females .20 .41 .21 .42 .54 .96 .51 .84 1.97 1.42 .91 .95 2.07 1.44
Total .36 .81 .12 .33 .54 .95 .50 .83 1.81 1.44 .88 .92 2.09 1.44 36.36


.198
Uca Males .30 .59 .05 .23 .36 .54 .19 .43 .54 .90 .36 .52 .27 .59
Females .80 .27 .22 .46 .81 .89 .53 .68 .47 .85 .44 .61 .45 .58
Total .20 .48 .03 .15 .59 .77 .39 .61 .49 .87 .41 .57 .41 .59 5.86


.038
Ucb Males .30 .59 .22 .43 .44 .64 .84 1.14 .94 .56 .56 .81 1.20 .78
Females .20 .41 .04 .20 .66 .75 .93 .94 1.09 .58 .82 .94 1.20 .71
Total .25 .52 .12 .33 .55 .70 .89 1.02 1.04 .57 .72 .89 1.20 .72 13.65


.085
Ucc Males .23 .50 .55 .34 .72 1.03 1.40 1.39 .69 .53 .65 .84 1.53 .64
Females .40 .20 .08 .28 .62 .95 1.07 1.19 1.02 .71 .86 .94 1.22 .88
Total .14 .40 .04 .21 .66 .98 1.21 1.29 .89 .67 .78 .91 1.28 .85 19.23


.115
Ucd Males .20 .48 .05 .22 .14 .39 .13 .40 .09 .29 .16 .39 .07 .26
Females .08 .27 .22 .62 .22 .45 .27 .55 .20 .44 .23 .47 .11 .32
Total .14 .40 .26 .22 .18 .43 .21 .50 .16 .40 .20 .44 .10 .31 1.85


.012
TS Males 15.86 12.65 10.33 3.46 15.04 4.34 16.44 6.13 16.06 4.41 14.49 5.40 24.26 4.60
Females 13.60 7.64 10 3.06 15.94 5.93 16.59 5.31 18.39 5.43 16.88 5.96 23.76 6.10
Total 14.83 10.64 10.14 3.20 15.50 5.22 16.53 5.66 17.59 5.20 15.89 5.85 23.85 5.83 22.98


.135

Note. Cn ¼ Continuations, Cm ¼ Completions, Nee ¼ New elements, CI ¼ Connections (Line), CTH ¼ Connections (Theme), BFD ¼ Boundary-
breaking (Fragment-dependent), BFI ¼ Boundary-breaking (Fragment-independent), PE ¼ Perspective, Hu ¼ Humor, Uca ¼ Unconventionality (a),
Ucb ¼ Unconventionality (b), Ucc ¼ Unconventionality (c), Ucd ¼ Unconventionality (d), TS ¼ Total Score.




p < .001.

p < .001, g2 ¼ .025, Uca, F(6, 886) ¼ 3.55, p < .001,
g2 ¼ .023, and Ucc, F(6, 886) ¼ 2.39, p ¼ .027, g2 ¼ .025.
For the Cm subscale, girls were higher than boys
in grades KG1, grade 4, and grade 5. Boys were
higher than girls in grades 2, 3, and 6. Subsequent
independent-samples t-test indicated girls were higher in
grade 2 (t ¼ 2.34, p ¼ .02, g2 ¼ .40). Boys were higher than
girls in grade 3 (t ¼ 2.74, p ¼ .007, g2 ¼ .39) and grade 6
(t ¼ 1.75, p ¼ .03, g2 ¼ .56). For the Uca subscale, boys
were higher than girls in grades KG1 and grade 4. Girls
 226 SAYED AND MOHAMED

TABLE 3 Nonstatistically significant differences were found

Pairwise Comparisons of the Test of Creative Thinking-Drawing between boys and girls, despite girls tend to show higher
Production (TCT-DP) Subscales and Total Score Across
Grade Levels
scores in figural creativity. Cheung and Lau (2010)
found evidence of girl’s superiority in verbal flexibility,
Mean figural fluency, figural flexibility, figural uniqueness,
Dependent (I) (J) Difference and figural unusualness using the Wallach-Kogan
Variable Grade Grade (I  J) SE Sig
creativity test.
TCT-DP Total KG1 KG2 4.567 1.226 .004 An interesting finding in this study is the fourth-grade
Score slump. Students in the fourth grade become conspicu-
Grade 6 –9.281 1.168 .000 ously less original in their ideation. Students’ scores in
KG2 Grade 2 –5.327 1.061 .000
the unconventionality (originality) subscale decreased
Grade 3 –6.354 1.021 .000
Grade 4 –7.059 1.123 .000 in the fourth grade. The reason of this slump is that
Grade 5 –5.522 .989 .000 students at the age of 9, they become more susceptible
Grade 6 –13.847 1.255 .000 to conformity. Also, their art turns to be realistic and
Grade 2 Grade 6 –8.520 .994 .000 they stick to rules in the games, instead of inventing
Grade 3 Grade 6 –7.494 .951 .000
them up (Runco, 1999). Surprisingly, there was a slump
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 12:14 17 February 2014

Grade 4 Grade 6 –6.788 1.060 .000

Grade 5 Grade 6 –8.325 .917 .000
were higher than boys in grades 2, 3, 5, and 6. Independent
samples t-test showed that girls excelled boys in grade
2(t ¼ 3.43, p ¼ .001, g2 ¼ .61), grade 3 (t ¼ 3.96, p ¼ .001,
g2 ¼ .60). For the Ucc subscale, boys were higher than girls
in KG1, grade 2, grade 3, and grade 6, and girls were
higher in KG2, grade 4 and grade 5. Independent samples
t-test showed that girls excelled boys in grade 4(t ¼ 2.03,
p ¼ .039, g2 ¼ .49) and grade 5 (t ¼ 2.17, p ¼ .020, g2 ¼ .24).
DISCUSSION
This study was designed to determine the effect of
gender and grade level on the students’ TCT-DP scores
from K–6 in a sample on the TCT-DP subscales and
total score. The results of this study indicated that there
are no gender differences on the students’ creativity
scores. A significant main effect was found for the grade
level. A significant interaction effect between gender and
grade level was also found only in three subscales: Cm,
Uca, and Ucc.
This study produced results that corroborate the find-
ings of a great deal of the previous work in this field
showing no gender differences in creativity (e.g., Cheung
& Lau, 2010; Cheung et al., 2004; He & Wong, 2011;
Rudowicz, 2004; Urban, 1991; Zachopolou & Makri,
2005). The results on gender differences in creative
thinking in the literature were quite mixed. It is safe to
conclude that no consistency was found among the
studies related to the gender-differences debate. Baer
(1999) concluded that ‘‘Among preschool and elemen-
tary subjects, girls outperform boys more often than
the reverse, but not so often that one can make a clear
statement regarding the overall nature of gender differ-
ences in divergent thinking ability’’ (p. 755).
in the students’ originality in grade 5 in Ucc. Students’
scores in the Uca, however, increased in grade 4 and
decreased in grades 5 and 6. There is a possible expla-
nation for the slump in the Ucc. The result may be
explained in the fact that Ucc (atypical or unusual com-
binations of figure and symbols) is somewhat similar to
originality or unusualness in other divergent thinking
tests, whereas Uca mainly depends on the manipulations
of elements in the drawing sheet. The students’ atypical
combinations of figures and symbols (Ucc) can also
represent associative thinking where a creative solution
is reached by associating or bringing together of ideas
that are unlike and remote or unrelated. In the Ucc task,
students are given points if they are able to produce
unusual combination of figures and symbols using one
or more of the drawing sheet fragments.
The drop-out rate of women was responsible for the
scarcity of female representations in domains such as
science, engineering, and technology as women are more
likely to leave full-time work than men especially in
these fields (Hewlett, Luce, & Servon, 2008). Some
delimiting factors include social influence, perceptions,
desire to help others, and physical ability (see Linn &
Hyde, 1989). This combination of findings provides
some support for the conceptual premise that if women
are given the opportunity and the same ground, they can
excel in domains dominated by men.
The findings from this study make several contribu-
tions to the current literature. First, the use of large
samples from both genders across different grade levels
can give a clear picture of the creativity development.
Second, no matter who will excel in the test scores rather
than it is an issue of maintaining equal opportunity
between men and women in social and academic
domains. These findings provide some important insights
for future research. Further research should be done to
investigate the gender differences in mathematical and
scientific creativity. Results from these studies might
guide the educational policies in diminishing the issue

of gender discrimination in domains such as math and
science. A further study with more focus on gender dif-
ferences in scientific or mathematical abilities is therefore
suggested. In future investigations, it might be possible
to use different divergent thinking assessment such as
performance-based assessments (e.g., creative products
such as poems, arts, etc.) with a large sample from
different grade levels.
Finally, a number of important limitations need to be
considered. Despite the use of the TCT-DP in several
cultures (e.g., Europe, Asia, and the United States), very
few studies involving this test have been conducted on
the Middle East. It looks like an advantage to use a test
for the first time in a certain culture. However, such a
test with a drawing task might not engage students to
think about possible transformations or changes that
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 12:14 17 February 2014
one can impose on the test sheet. In other words, other
widely used creativity tests involved some tasks that
involve the unusual uses of materials and things whereas
this newly administered test might be seen as a drawing
test more than a divergent thinking test.
REFERENCES
Abra, J., & Valentine-French, S. (1991). Gender differences in creative
achievement: A survey of explanations. Genetic, Social, and General
Psychology Monographs, 117, 235–284.
Baer, J. (1994). Divergent thinking is not a general trait: A
multidomain training experiment. Creativity Research Journal, 7,
35–46.
Baer, J. (1998). Gender differences in the effects of extrinsic motivation
on creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 32, 18–37.
Baer, J. (1999). Gender differences. In M. Runco & S. Fritzker (Eds.),
Encyclopedia of creativity (pp. 753–758). San Diego, CA: Academic
Press.
Baer, J., & Kaufman, J. C. (2008). Gender differences in creativity.
Journal of Creative Behavior, 42, 75–105.
Chae, S. (2003). Adaptation of a picture-type creativity test for
pre-school children. Language Testing, 20(2), 178–188.
Chan, D. W., Cheung, P. C., Lau, S., Wu, W. Y., Kwong, J. M., &
Li, W. L. (2001). Assessing ideational fluency in primary students
in Hong Kong. Creativity Research Journal, 13, 359–365.
Cheung, P. C., & Lau, S. (2010). Gender differences in the creativity
of Hong Kong school children: Comparison by using the new
electronic Wallach–Kogan creativity tests. Creativity Research
Journal, 22, 194–199.
GENDER DIFFERENCES IN DIVERGENT THINKING 227
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 Tests and their implications. Creativity Research
Journal, 16, 69–78.
Dollinger, S. J., Urban, K. K., & James, T. A. (2004). Creativity and
openness: Further validation of two creative product measures.
Creativity Research Journal, 16, 35–47.
Dudek, S. Z., Strobel, M. G., & Runco, M. A. (1993). Cumulative
and proximal influences on the social environment and children’s
creative potential. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 154, 487–499.
Gaynor, J. L. R., & Runco, M. A. (1992). Family size, birth-order,
age-interval, and the creativity of children. Journal of Creative
Behavior, 26, 108–118.
He, W., & Wong, W. (2011). Gender differences in creative thinking
revisited: Findings from analysis of variability. Personality and Indi-
vidual Differences, 51, 807–811.
Hewlett, S. A., Luce, C. B., & Servon, L. J. (2008). Stopping the
exodus of women in science. Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 22–24.
Linn, M. C., & Hyde, J. S. (1989). Gender, mathematics, and science.
Educational Researcher, 18(8), 17–27.
Misra, I. (2003). Openness to experience: Gender differences and its
correlates. Journal of Personality and Clinical Studies, 19, 141–151.
Rudowicz, E. (2004). Applicability of the test of Creative Thinking-
Drawing Production for assessing creative potential of Hong Kong
adolescents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48(3), 202–218.
Runco, M. A. (1986). Predicting children’s creative performance.
Psychological Reports, 59, 1247–1254.
Runco, J. (1999). Developmental trends in creative abilities and poten-
tials. In M. Runco & S. Fritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity
(pp. 537–559). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Runco, M. A., Dow, G., & Smith, W. R. (2006). Information, experi-
ence, and divergent thinking: An empirical test. Creativity Research
Journal, 18, 269–277.
Simonton, D. K. (1994). Greatness: Who makes history and why. New
York, NY: Guilford.
Singer, D. G., & Singer, J. L. (1990). The house of make-believe:
Children’s play and the developing imagination. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Tegano, D. W., & Moran, J. D. (1989). Sex differences in the original
thinking of preschool and elementary school children. Creativity
Research Journal, 2, 102–110.
Urban, K. K. (1991). On the development of creativity in children.
Creativity Research Journal, 4, 177–191.
Urban, K. K., & Jellen, H. G. (1996). Test for Creative Thinking–
Drawing Production (TCT-DP) Manual. Frankfurt, Germany:
Swets Test Services.
Vernon, P. E. (1989). The nature–nurture problem in creativity. In J. A.
Glover, R. R. Ronning & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of crea-
tivity: Perspectives on individual differences (pp. 93–110). New York,
NY: Plenum Press.
Zachopoulou, E., & Makri, A. (2005). A developmental perspective of
divergent movement ability in early young children. Early Child
Development and Care, 175, 85–95.