PYC1501/Intelligence and creativity/OER/2022

Unit 8: Intelligence and creativity

Learning objectives
This learning unit will help you to:

 gain knowledge about the concept of intelligence and creativity.

 gain knowledge about the different types of intelligence.
 understand the different factors that influence intelligence.
 understand how scientists in the field of psychology study and measure intelligence.
 understand the concept of creativity and its related aspects.

8.1 Introduction

The question of what constitutes human intelligence is one of the oldest debates in psychology. Most of
us studying psychology have been curious to know what the concept of intelligence means. When you
think of ‘smart people’ you are more likely to have a sense of what makes them smart. Maybe you think
they have good memory, or they can think quickly, or even that they simply know a whole lot of
information and facts. Indeed, people who exhibit such qualities appear to be very intelligent (Call, 2001).

In this unit, we consider how psychologists conceptualise human intelligence. We will learn about the
nature of intelligence and the different theoretical models that explain intelligence. The factors that
influence the development of intelligence will also be discussed. This discussion will include the
measurements of intelligence and the concept of creativity will also be explored.

8.2 Defining Intelligence and creativity

When we talk about intelligence, we typically mean intellectual ability. Weschler (1955) defined
intelligence as the global capacity to act purposefully, to think rationally, and to deal effectively with the
environment. This broadly encompasses the ability to learn, to remember and use new information, to
solve problems and to adapt to novel situations. Creativity is the ability to think about something in novel
and unusual ways and to come up with conventional solutions to problems (Santrock, 2003).

8.3 The nature of intelligence

Alfred Binet was fascinated by individual differences and the development of intelligence. Binet and
Theodore Simon created a test for children’s intellectual capacity. In the early 1900s, the Binet‐Simon test

1
 PYC1501/Intelligence and creativity/OER/2022

was adapted by a Stanford professor, Lewis Terman to create widely used Stanford‐Binet intelligence test
(Terman, 1916). The test was standardised on a large sample of children. Terman (1916) was able to plot
the scores of children in a normal distribution (see figure 8.1 below). To understand a normal distribution,
think about the height of people. Most people are average in height, with relatively fewer being tall or
short. Terman (1916) laid out intelligence scores in exactly the same way, allowing for easy and reliable
categorisations and comparisons between individuals.

Figure 8.1: Bell curve ‐ Normal distribution of intelligence scores.

https://nobaproject.com/images/shared/images/000/000/363/original.gif

Francis Galton became one of the pioneers of psychological measurement (Hunt, 2009). He measured
various physical characteristics such as grip strength and psychological attributes such as the ability to
judge distance or discriminate between colours. Galton was particularly interested in intelligence, which
he thought was heritable in much the same way that height and eye colour are. He coined the phrase
nature vs nurture ‐ referring to the contributions of heredity (genes) and environment to intelligence.
Nature involves the inherited component of intelligence, and nurture involves the effects of the
environment. Galton also believed in heritability ‐ the variance in the population that can be attributed
to genetics. He stated that inherited psychological traits could be studied by looking at identical and
fraternal twins. Galton established intelligence as a variable that could be measured, despite his methods
being rather simplistic by modern standards (Hunt, 2009).

Motivated by several criticisms of the Stanford‐Binet test, the psychologist David Wechsler (1955)
developed an improved measure of intelligence called the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS). To
address the shortcomings of Stanford‐Binet test, Wechsler created a test that assessed a wide range of
intellectual abilities. The understanding that intelligence is made up of a pool of specific abilities, is a
notable departure from Spearman’s concept of a general intelligence which will be discussed later in this

2
 PYC1501/Intelligence and creativity/OER/2022

unit. The WAIS assesses people's ability to remember, compute, understand language, reason well, and
process information quickly (Wechsler, 1955). The concept of intelligence and the development of
intelligence assessment tools come a long way in the discipline of psychology. With the introduction of
smart technology and growing research in this field, it is likely that our understanding of the concept of
intelligence as we know it will expand in the coming years.

8.4 Influences on intelligence

One of the debates in the study of intelligence centres on the extent to which intelligence is influenced
by genetics, the environment, or culture. This section explores this debate.

8.4.1 Genetic influences on intelligence

Brain imaging studies demonstrate that standard measures of intelligence positively correlate with overall
brain volume. Thus, intelligence measures are positively correlated with the thickness of the cerebral
cortex, especially in the prefrontal lobes. Because intelligence is such a broad concept, it is unlikely that
we have intelligence centres in the brain. Instead, this has led to studies that investigate the health of the
brain’s white matter, which also shows positive association with intelligence measures. Studies of people
with brain damage indicate that fluid intelligence is negatively affected by the damage to the frontal lobe.
Different brain architectures may underlie intelligence in people. In men, Intelligence quotient (IQ) ‐ the
numerical representation of the level of an individual’s intelligence ‐ was most strongly correlated with
the amount of gray matter located in both frontal and the left parietal lobe. In women, IQ was highly
correlated with the volume of gray matter in the right frontal lobe and Broca’ s area and with the volume
of white matter throughout the brain (Cacioppo & Freberg, 2013).

Genes undoubtedly influence intelligence. Most people are aware of a moderate similarity in the
intelligence of parents and their biological children, or between brothers and sisters (Weiten & Hassim,
2016). In addition, researchers have found genetic markers of intelligence on three chromosomes. Jansen
(1969, in Santrock, 2003) claimed that intelligence is primarily inherited and that the environment and
culture play only a minimal role in intelligence. The concept of heritability ‐ the variance in the population
that can be attributed to genetics, is used to sort out the effects of heredity and environment. This concept
is used in relation to groups (population) not individuals. Therefore, the psychologists rely on heritability
to explain why people differ, not to explain why a single individual has a certain level of intelligence
(Santrock, 2003).

Twin studies continue to dominate the research on intelligence. Twin studies indicated that monozygotic
(identical) twins who are raised together are more similar in intelligence than dizygotic (fraternal) twins
who are raised together. Therefore, the correlation for identical twins is significantly higher than that of
the fraternal twins, although fraternal twins are also shown to be similar in intelligence. Furthermore,
studies have shown that identical twins raised apart are more similar in intelligence than fraternal twins

3
 PYC1501/Intelligence and creativity/OER/2022

raised together. Even adopted children are more similar in intelligence to their biological parents than to
their adoptive parents. Therefore, it can be deduced from this observation that genetics play an important
role in intelligence (Weiten & Hassim, 2016). However, studies on adopted children have been
inconclusive about the relative importance of heredity in intelligence. One study established that the
educational levels attained by biological parents were better predictors of adopted children’s IQ scores
than were the IQs of adoptive parents. Because of the genetic link between the adopted children and
their biological parents, the implication is that heredity is more important than the environment
(Santrock, 2003). Although genetic endowment may always influence a person’s intellectual ability, the
environmental influences and opportunities that people experience also contribute to a certain extent.

8.4.2 Environmental influences on intelligence

Intriguing evidence for the environmental view comes from adoption studies that determine the extent
to which environment shapes one’s intelligence (Weiten & Hassim, 2016). Consider a family with one
adopted child and one biological child. The biological parents contribute the genes and the environment
to their biological child but, they contribute only the environment to their adopted child. If intelligence is
highly genetic, the IQs of biological children should be more like their parents’ IQs than are the IQs of
adopted children. However, a study found that children raised by the same mother tend to resemble her
IQ to the same degree. It does not matter whether or not they share her genes (Weinberg, 1989, in Coon
& Mitterer, 2012). Another study also found that children that were moved from an orphanage and were
adopted by parents who gave them love, a family, and a stimulating environment, showed an increase of
29 IQ points in their scores. The children that were left in the orphanage drop an average of 26 IQ points
(Skeels, 1966, in Coon & Mitterer, 2012).

Some studies have indicated that children living with foster parents have similar intelligence as their foster
parents. Furthermore, the IQ scores of children who are biologically unrelated, but have been raised in
one home environment, have been found to be significantly similar. This indicates that the environment
in which the child is raised influences intelligence (Weiten & Hassim, 2016). In one study, it was found
that the middle‐income professional parents were more likely to talk to their children than families where
parents rely on social welfare resources for income support. The more the parents talked and
communicated with their children, the higher the children’s IQs were. Other studies also found substantial
socioeconomic status differences in intelligence. This is because many low‐income parents have
difficulties providing an intellectually stimulating environment for their children (Santrock, 2003).

Keep in mind that the environmental influences are complex. Growing up with all the advantages does
not necessarily guarantee success in life. Children from wealthy families may have easy access to excellent
schools, books, travel, and tutoring, but they may take such opportunities for granted and not be
motivated to learn and achieve. Conversely, poor or disadvantaged children may be motivated and
successful (Santrock, 2003).

4
 PYC1501/Intelligence and creativity/OER/2022

8.4.3 Cultural influences on intelligence

Cultures vary in the way they define intelligence. Most European Americans, for example, think of
intelligence in terms of reasoning and thinking skills but, people in most African countries consider
responsible participation in family and social life as an integral part of intelligence (Santrock, 2003).

Children sometimes lack adequate intellectual stimulation due to socioeconomic reasons. Economically
and socially disadvantaged groups live in areas where there are inadequate resources for formal
schooling. However, there are various ways that the children can learn and develop their intellectual
capacities. For example, some Ndebele children in rural South Africa may not have access to formal
schooling but, have been educated in cultural beading ‐ the skill of threading different coloured beads in
sequential order to create items such as jewellery or other cultural artefacts. Therefore, these children
develop intellectual skills such as sequential memory, and fine motor coordination (involving the use of
hands and eyes to create the artefacts). Among the indigenous people of Africa, the skill of cultural
beading is usually passed from generation to generation and an adult may eventually make a living by
selling the produced artefacts (Weiten & Hassim, 2016).

Some scientists and psychologists have noted that traditional standardised measures of intelligence are
biased against other cultures, and the children tend to perform poorly on these tests. White (2006, in
Coon & Mitterer, 2012) maintained that we cannot believe that children of other cultures are intellectually
disabled. The fault must lie with the test. Cultural values, knowledge, language patterns, and traditions
can greatly affect performance on tests designed for Western cultures. To solve this problem,
psychologists have tried to develop culture‐fair tests ‐ the tests that do not disadvantage certain groups.
A culture‐fair test is designed to minimise the importance of skills and knowledge that may be more
common in some cultures than in others. Culture‐fair tests attempt to measure intelligence without, as
much as possible, being influenced by a person’s verbal skills, cultural background, and educational level
(Coon & Mitterer, 2012). Intelligence is not universal; what may be regarded as intelligence in one culture
may not necessarily be so in another culture. For instance, Nisbett (2003) asserted that for people in
Western cultures, intelligence is viewed as a means for order and to engage in rational debate, whereas
people in Eastern cultures see intelligence as a way for understanding and relating to others. Therefore,
it can be said that intelligence is context‐specific.

Before you continue with this unit, please do the following activity:

Activity 1: Please explain the most important contributions of the environment to intelligence.

Answer: Your answer should include the studies on adopted children and how the home
environment influences the IQ scores. Consider why the IQ scores of adopted children may or may not
differ from the IQ scores of the adoptive parents. Also, you should consider the biological children raised
by their biological parents and determine whether the environment plays any role in the IQ scores of the
children. Also include the findings from twin studies on intelligence.

5
 PYC1501/Intelligence and creativity/OER/2022

8.5 Standardisation and the Intelligence Quotation (IQ)

Because intelligence is such an important individual difference dimension, psychologists have invested
substantial effort in creating and improving measures of intelligence, and these tests are now the most
accurate of all psychological tests. In fact, the ability to accurately assess intelligence is one of the most
important contributions of psychology to everyday public life. The goal of most intelligence tests is to
measure the general (g) intelligence factor. Good intelligence tests have reliability ‐ the extent to which
a measure (or test) yields the same results over time (thus, consistency), and validity ‐ the extent to which
a test accurately measures what it supposed to measure. For example, an intelligence test must measure
intelligence, nothing else.

Intelligence changes with age. A 7‐year‐old child who could correctly multiply 183 by 39 would certainly
be regarded as intelligent, but a 25‐year‐old who could not do so would be seen as being unintelligent.
Thus, understanding intelligence requires that we know the norms or standards in a given population of
people at a given age. The standardisation of a test involves testing a large number of people at different
ages and computing the average score on the test at each age level. The average scores enable the
psychologists to standardise the tests and to obtain scores that deviate from the norm.

Standardisation is an important part of developing psychological tests and from time to time tests are
revised in order to accurately measure the concepts of interest. It is important that intelligence tests be
standardised on a regular basis because the overall level of intelligence in a population may change over
time. The Flynn effect refers to the observation that scores on intelligence tests worldwide have increased
substantially over the few past decades (Flynn, 1999). Although the increase varies somewhat from
country to country, the average increase is only about 3 IQ points every 10 years. There are many
explanations for the Flynn effect, including better nutrition, increased access to information, and more
familiarity with multiple‐choice tests. Once the standardisation has been accomplished, we have a picture
of the average abilities of people at different ages and can calculate a person’s mental age, which is the
age at which a person is performing intellectually. If we compare the mental age of a person to the
person’s chronological age (age in years), the result is the intelligence quotient (Weiten & Hassim, 2016).
The score is derived by dividing a person’s mental age (the score from the test) by the chronological age
to create an overall quotient. Therefore, an intelligent quotient is calculated as follows:

IQ = mental age ÷ chronological age × 100.

For example, a 10‐year‐old child who does well on an intelligence test as the average 10‐year‐old children
would have an IQ of 100 (10 ÷ 10 × 100). An 8‐year‐old child who does as well as the average 10‐year‐old
child would have an IQ of 125 (10 ÷ 8 × 100).

Most modern intelligence tests are based on the relative position of a person’s score among people of the
same age. This provides a good description of the score’s meaning. Intelligence tests are also used by
industrial and organisational psychologists in the process of personnel selection. Personnel selection is
the use of structured tests to select people who are likely to perform well at given jobs (Schmidt & Hunter,

6
 PYC1501/Intelligence and creativity/OER/2022

1998). Measures include tests of cognitive and physical ability and job knowledge tests, as well as
measures of IQ and personality.

You may find the following video link on intelligence useful https://youtu.be/9xTz3QjcloI (Note: Video not
for assessment purposes).

8.6 Types of Intelligence

This learning unit indicated that different scholars have contributed significantly to our understanding of
intelligence. Now we discuss some types of intelligence. Please note that other types of intelligence are
discussed in relation to the theories of intelligence.

8.6.1 Crystallised and fluid intelligence

In the 1980s, Catell expressed two facets of intelligence that jointly made up the general ‘g’ factor. These
are (i) crystallised intelligence ‐ which requires specific learned knowledge, such as vocabulary or
multiplication table (Cacioppo & Freberg, 2013). It also involves knowledge and skills in problem‐solving
(Weiten & Hassim, 2016). Crystallised intelligence remains fairly stable throughout adulthood (Cacioppo
& Freberg, 2013), and (ii) fluid intelligence ‐ the ability to think logically without needing previously
learned knowledge (Cacioppo & Freberg, 2013). It also involves memory capacity and information
processing speed (Weiten & Hassim, 2016). Fluid intelligence, like reaction time, includes abilities that do
not require acquired knowledge. It peaks up in young adulthood and then gradually declines over the
remaining lifespan (Cacioppo & Freberg, 2013). A person needs pattern recognition, a type of fluid
intelligence, to play chess or Sudoku well, but understanding the rules of the game requires crystallised
intelligence (Cacioppo & Freberg, 2013).

8.6.2 Social and emotional intelligence

Traditional views of intelligence focused on education‐related skills, but emotional and social skills are
important for successful adaptation. Social intelligence ‐ refers to a person's ability to understand and
manage interpersonal relationships. Emotional intelligence ‐ is the ability to monitor one’s own emotions
and other’s feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them, and to use this information to guide one’s
thinking and actions (Santrock, 2003). This types of intelligence allow people to manage emotions and
reason about the mental states of others. Clinical cases involving individuals with brain damage,
psychological disorders, and intellectual disability provide evidence for social and emotional abilities that
are separate from cognitive abilities (Cacioppo & Freberg, 2013). Emotional intelligence (aka emotional
quotient – EQ, emphasises the experience and expression of emotion. Some researchers argue that
emotional intelligence is a set of skills in which an individual can accurately understand the emotions of
others, can identify, and label their own emotions and can use emotions (Mayer & Salovey, 1997).
Goleman (1995, in Santrock, 2003) viewed emotional intelligence as comprising the following aspects:

7
 PYC1501/Intelligence and creativity/OER/2022

 Developing emotional awareness (such as the ability to separate feelings from actions)
 Managing emotions (such as being able to control anger)
 Reading emotions (such taking the perspective of others)
 Handling relationships (such as the ability to resolve relationship problems)

Goleman (1995, in Santrock, 2003) believed that emotional intelligence was more important in
predicting a person’s competence than the traditional IQ measures of intelligence.

8.7 Theoretical models of intelligence

8.7.1 Spearman’s general (g) factor theory of intelligence

Early in the twentieth century, the statistician Charles Spearman (1904) developed the general factor
theory of intelligence ‐ a theory that views intelligence as a construct that is made up of a general mental
ability that underlies multiple specific skills. He noticed that people who do well on one test also tended
to do well on other tests. He concluded that these correlations were created by a general ‘g’ cognitive
ability (Bernstein et al., 2012). Spearman developed a statistical procedure called the factor analysis ‐ a
statistical technique used to represent correlations between intelligence tests in terms of a smaller
number of variables known as factors. He postulated that if a number of variables correlate highly with
each other, then a single general factor is influencing all of them (Weiten & Hassim, 2016). He argued, for
example, that the (g) factor was important for learning languages but not for distinguishing between two
musical tones (Cacioppo & Freberg, 2013).

Spearman (1904) also acknowledged the existence of the specific (s) factors that play a role in intelligence
(Van Deventer & Mojapelo‐Batka, 2013). The specific factors relate to specific information and skills
needed for particular tasks. He further stated that people’s scores on a particular test depend on both the
general and specific factors. However, further examination of the test scores revealed the correlations
that could not be explained by either (g) or (s) factor. These other factors are called group factors.
Although Spearman modified his theory to include the group factors, he still claimed that the (g) factors
represented a measure of intellectual power (Bernstein et al., 2012).

8.7.2 Sternberg’s triarchic theory of intelligence

Sternberg’s (1995, in Weiten & Hassim, 2016) triarchic theory of intelligence emphasises the three
components of intelligence that characterise the way people process information. These are briefly
discussed below.

 Analytical intelligence: it consists of several basic units of information processing ability, including the
ability to acquire or store information, to retrieve information, and to translate thoughts into
performance (Santrock, 2003). It also involves abstract reasoning, evaluation and judgement. This is

8
 PYC1501/Intelligence and creativity/OER/2022

the type of intelligence that is mostly measured by the conventional IQ tests and is important in school
and academic environments (Weiten & Hassim, 2016).

 Creative intelligence: this is the ability to process novel information and to generate new ideas
(Weiten & Hassim, 2016). Creative people have the ability to solve new problems quickly, but they
also learn how to solve familiar problems in an automatic, rote way so that their minds are free to
handle other problems that require insight and creativity (Santrock, 2003).

 Practical intelligence: Practical intelligence links everyday problem‐solving abilities at home and at
work (Weiten & Hassim, 2016). To illustrate this concept, James is a street‐smart person who learned
how to deal in practical ways with his world, the people, and how to get out of troubles, although his
IQ score on traditional test is low. According the theory, James has practical intelligence that helps
him to survive and to get along well with the world around him (Santrock, 2003).

8.7.3 Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences

Imagine someone who has great musical skills, composes the best songs, but performs poorly psychology.
Would you call that person ‘unintelligent’? It is important to note that some people whose IQ scores are
low or below average, may exhibit exceptional abilities in certain specific areas. Gardner’s (1999) theory
of multiple intelligences is based on the idea that people process information through different channels,
and these are relatively independent of one another. He identified eight types of intelligences, accounting
for genius in music and in several other domains that have not traditionally been categorised as
intelligence (See table 8.1 below).

Table 8.1: Gardner’s multiple intelligences. (Adapted from Gardner, 1999)

Intelligence Description

Verbal‐linguistic The ability to speak and write well

Logico‐mathematical The ability to use logic and mathematical skills to solve problems

Visual‐spatial The ability to think and reason about objects in three dimensions

Musical‐rhythm The ability to perform and enjoy music

Bodily‐kinesthetic The ability to move the body in sports, dance, or other physical activities

Interpersonal The ability to understand and interact effectively with others

Intrapersonal The ability to have insight into the self

9
 PYC1501/Intelligence and creativity/OER/2022

Naturalistic The ability to recognise, identify, and understand animals, plants, and other living
things

Gardner (1999) believed that each of these intelligences can be destroyed by brain damage; that each
involves unique cognitive skills, and that each shows up in exaggerated fashion both in the gifted and in
individuals who have mental retardation or autism (a psychological disorder marked by deficit in social
interactions and interests). Some criticism labelled against the theory is that domains such as musical skill
as a type of intelligence is off base. The critics argue that Gardner may have left out many other skills in
his theory. For example, there are outstanding chess players, soccer players, politicians, lawyers, and so
on yet, we do not refer to chess intelligence, or soccer intelligence (Santrock, 2003). It is also important
to note that Gardner (1999) does not have a domain for creativity in his theory.

8.7.4 Thurston’s multiple factors of intelligence

Thurston (1947) proposed a multiple factors theory of intelligence. He recognised seven factors which he
considered to represent primary mental abilities. These are:

 Verbal comprehension‐ an ability to understand concepts in verbal form.

 General reasoning‐ an ability to solve complex problems or plan something new by drawing on
experience.
 Word fluency‐ ability to speak and write fluently.
 Memory‐ ability to learn and remember information.
 Number ability‐ ability to work with numbers.
 Spatial ability‐ ability to represent things visually in space and to manipulate them mentally.
 Perceptual speed‐ ability to recognise objects and identify similarities and differences.

Thurston (1947) was of the view that these factors were independent of each other, however,
subsequently he acknowledged that the factors were related to the general or ‘g’ factor (Van Deventer &
Mojapelo‐Batka, 2013).

8.7.5 Caroll's model of intelligence

Carroll (1993) divided intelligence into three levels, or strata, descending from the most abstract down to
the most specific (see figure 8.2 below). Carroll called the highest level (stratum III) the general intelligence
factor ‘g.’ Below this level, is the less specific (stratum II) level which consists of categories such as, fluid
intelligence, visual perception, and processing speed. Each of these categories in turn, can be sub‐divided
into very specific components such as visual memory. (stratum I). To better understand this
categorisation, simply think of the word ‘animal.’ This is a broad or general word that denotes all types of
animals that you could possibly think of (stratum III). At a less specific level (stratum II), there may be

10
 PYC1501/Intelligence and creativity/OER/2022

types of animals such as mammals, and reptiles. At a more specific level (stratum I) there would animals
such as elephant, and snakes (stratum I).

Figure 8.2: Caroll's model of Intelligence.

https://nobaproject.com/images/shared/images/000/000/368/original.jpg

GROUP ACTIVITY

In a discussion forum on myUnisa with your e‐tutor and peers, discuss the different theoretical
models of intelligence and explain why you support, or do not support a particular theory.

NB: Please note that it is compulsory for you to have this discussion.

8.8 Creativity

Creativity is the ability to think about something in novel and unusual ways and to come up with
conventional solutions to problems (Santrock, 2003). Very creative people often have intense knowledge
about something, work on it, look at novel solutions, seek the advice and help from the experts, and take
risks. Creativity is a vital form of intelligence that drives people in many disciplines to discover something
new. It can be found in every area of life; from the way you decorate your room, to creating artwork and
even coming up with new and innovative ways of doing something (Santrock, 2003).

Creativity is often associated with divergent thinking ‐ the ability to produce unusual and unconventional
thoughts or solutions to problems (Van Deventer & Mojapelo‐Batka, 2013). Divergent thinking can be
described as thinking ‘outside the box’. It allows an individual to arrive at unique, multiple solutions to a

11
 PYC1501/Intelligence and creativity/OER/2022

given problem. In contrast, convergent thinking describes the ability to provide a conventional, correct,
or well‐established answer or solution to a problem (Cropley, 2006).

Studies on creativity have identified five components that are important for creative work (Ericsson, 1998;
Hennessey & Amabile, 2010; Simonton, 2001) These components are listed in table 8.2 below.

Table 8.2: Components for creativity. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/edpsy/chapter/intelligence

Component Description

Expertise Creative people have studied and learned about a topic

Imaginative thinking Creative people view problems in new and different ways

Risk‐taking Creative people take on new, but potentially risky approaches

Intrinsic interest Creative people take on projects for interest, not money

Working in creative environments The most creative people are supported, aided, and challenged by
other people working on similar projects

Before you continue with this unit, please do the following activity:

Activity 2: Tebogo collects old vehicle tyres from the scrapyards and creates colourful flowerpots
for gardening. He sells these flowerpots to people in his neighborhood. What creative abilities are
displayed by Tebogo in this scenario?

Answer: Your answer should reflect on creativity and intelligence. You should also include
divergent thinking. Your answer should also reflect on the aspects of Sternberg’s triarchic theory,
Gardner’s theory, and Thurston’s theory of intelligence. Consider the intellectual skills that Tebogo used
in this regard.

8.8.1 Stages of creative thought

According to Coon and Mitterer (2012), there are typically five stages that occur during creative problem
solving.

(i) Orientation ‐ a person defines the problem and identifies its most important dimensions.
(ii) Preparation ‐ creative thinkers saturate themselves with as much information about the problem as
possible.

12
 PYC1501/Intelligence and creativity/OER/2022

(iii) Incubation ‐ most major problems produce a period in which all attempted solutions will be futile. At
this point, problem solving may continue at subconscious level. Although the problem seems to have
been set aside, it is still ‘cooking’ in the background.
(iv) Illumination ‐ the incubation stage is often ended by a rapid insight or a series of insights (Coon &
Mitterer, 2012). At this stage, people experience the ‘Aha’ moment when all the pieces of the problem
seem to fit together (Santrock, 2003).
(v) Verification ‐ this step is to test and critically evaluate the solution obtained during the stage of
illumination. If the solution proves faulty, the thinker reverts to the stage of incubation

Creative thought is not always so neat. Nevertheless, the stages listed above are a good summary of the
most typical sequence of the events (Coon & mutterer, 2012).

8.8.2 Characteristics of creative thinkers

According to Perkins (1994, in Santrock, 2003), creative people tend to have the following characteristics:

 Flexibility and playful thinking ‐ although creativity takes hard work, the work goes more smoothly if
it is taken lightly. Having fun helps to disarm the inner sensor that can condemn the idea as off base.
 Inner motivation ‐ creative people are often motivated by the joy of creating. They tend to be less
inspired by grades, money, or favourable feedback from others. Therefore, creative people tend to
be motivated more internally than externally.
 Risk‐taking ‐ creative people make more mistakes than their less imaginative counterparts because,
they come up with more ideas and more possibilities. They win some and lose some. Creative thinkers
learn to cope with unsuccessful projects and see failure as an opportunity to learn.
 Objective evaluation of work ‐ most creative people strive to evaluate their work objectively. They
may use an established set of criteria to make judgements or rely on the judgements of others. In this
manner, they can determine whether further creative thinking would improve their work.

GROUP ACTIVITY

In a discussion forum on myUnisa with your e‐tutor and peers, reflect on creativity and give an
example of any creative work that you have done.

NB: Please note that it is compulsory for you to have this discussion on myUnisa.

13
 PYC1501/Intelligence and creativity/OER/2022

8.9 Summary

Intelligence is broad and arguably one of the most complex concepts in psychology. Nevertheless, scholars
continue to research about the concept to generate more knowledge and understanding of the concept.
Thus far, scholars have provided multiple perspectives to understand the concept of intelligence focusing
on theories, measurements of intelligence and creativity. To greater lengths, the research conducted so
far has helped understand why individuals perform exceptionally well on tasks while others perform
relatively poor on the same tasks. In addition, intelligence tests enable us to make important decisions
when we recruit candidates for employment, and schools, etc. This highlights that intelligence and
creativity are important in our everyday functioning and contribute to our understanding of human
behaviour.

14
 PYC1501/Intelligence and creativity/OER/2022

8.10 Glossary

Analytical intelligence: it includes the ability to acquire or store information, to retrieve information, and
to translate thoughts into performance.

Autism: a psychological disorder marked by deficit in social interactions and interests.

convergent thinking: is the ability to provide conventional, correct, or well‐established answers or

solutions to problems.

Creative intelligence: an ability to produce new products, ideas, or inventing a new, novel solution to a
problem.

Creativity: is the ability to generate, create or discover new ideas, solutions, and possibilities.

Crystallised intelligence: the ability to think logically using specific learned knowledge.

Cultural beading: the skill of treading different coloured beads in sequential order to create objects such
as jewellery or other cultural artefacts.

Culture‐fair test: is a test designed to minimise the importance of skills and knowledge that may be
more common in some cultures but not in others.

Divergent thinking: the ability to produce unusual and unconventional thoughts or solutions to problems
(i.e., thinking outside the box).

Factor analysis: a statistical technique used to represent correlations between intelligence tests in terms
of a smaller number of variables known as factors.

Fluid intelligence: is the ability to think logically without needing previously learned knowledge.

Flynn effect: refers to the observation that scores on intelligence tests worldwide have increased
substantially over the past few decades.

General factor theory of intelligence: Spearman’s theory that views intelligence as a construct that is
made up of a general mental ability that underlies multiple specific skills.

Heritability: the variance in the population that can be attributed to genetics.

Intelligence quotient (IQ): is the numerical representation of the level of an individual’s intelligence.

Intelligence: is the global capacity to act purposefully, to think rationally, and to deal effectively with the
environment.

Practical intelligence: is the practical wisdom accumulated through experience, including the ability to
get along with people and solve practical problems.

15
 PYC1501/Intelligence and creativity/OER/2022

Reliability: is the extent to which a test yields a consistent, reproducible measure of performance.

Social intelligence: refers to a person's ability to understand and manage interpersonal relationships.

Standardisation: the process of testing a large number of people at different ages and computing the
average score on the test at each age level.

Theory of multiple intelligences: Gardner’s theory proposing that each person possesses at least eight
types of intelligence.

Triarchic theory of intelligence: Sternberg’s theory that describes intelligence as having analytic,
creative, and practical dimensions of intelligence.

Validity: is the extent to which a test measures what it supposed to measure.

16
 PYC1501/Intelligence and creativity/OER/2022

8.11 References
Bar‐On, R. (2006). The Bar‐On model of emotional‐social intelligence (ESI). Psicometha, 18(Suppl.), 13–25.

Bernstein, D.A., Clarke‐Steward, A., Penner, L.A. & Roy, E.J. (2012). Psychology (9th ed.). Wadsworth.

Binet, A. (1894). Psychologie des grands calculateurs et joueurs d'échecs. (Psychology of great calculators
and chess players). Librairie Hachette.

Binet, A., & Simon, T. (1916). The development of intelligence in the child. In H.H. Goddard (Ed.),
Development of intelligence in children (the Binet ‐ Simon Scale) (E.S. Kite, Trans., pp. 182±273). Williams
& Wilkins

Biswas‐Diener, R. (2021). Intelligence. In R. Biswas‐Diener & E. Diener (Eds), Noba textbook series:
Psychology. Champaign, IL: DEF publishers. Retrieved from http://noba.to/ncb2h79v

Bouchard, T.J. (2004). Genetic influence on human psychological traits ‐ A survey. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 13(4), 148–151.

Cacioppo, J.T. & Freberg, L.A. (2013). Discovering psychology: The science of mind. Wadsworth.

Call, J. (2001). Chimpanzee social cognition. Trends in Social Sciences, 5(9), 388‐393.

Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor‐analytic studies. Cambridge University
Press.

Ceci, S. J., Williams, W. & Barnett, S. M. (2009). Women’s underrepresentation in science: socio cultural
and biological considerations. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 218‐261.

Chabris, C. F., & Hearst, E. S. (2003). Visualization, pattern recognition, and forward search: Effects of
playing speed and sight of the position on grandmaster chess errors. Cognitive Science, 27(4), 637‐648.

Ciccarelli, S.K. & White, N.J. (2014). Psychology (4th ed.). Pearson.

Coon, D. & Mitterer, J.O. (2012). Introduction to psychology: Active learning through models (12th ed.).
Wadsworth.

Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1040‐1048.

Ericsson, K.A. (1998). The Scientific Study of Expert Levels of Performance: general implications for optimal
learning and creativity. High Ability Studies, 9(1), 75‐100.

Flynn, J. R. (1999). Searching for justice: The discovery of IQ gains over time. American Psychologist,
54(1), 5–20.
Flynn J. R. (1987). "Massive IQ gains in 14 nations: What IQ tests really measure". Psychological Bulletin,
101, 171–191.

Gallup, G. G. (1982). Self‐awareness and the emergence of mind in primates. American Journal of
Primatology, 2(3), 237‐248.

17
 PYC1501/Intelligence and creativity/OER/2022

Gardner, H. (1985). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. Basic Books.

Halpern, D. F. (1997). Sex differences in intelligence: Implications for education. American Psychologist,
52(10), 1091‐1102.

Hauser, M. D., MacNeilage, P., & Ware, M. (1996). Numerical representations in primates. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences, 93(4), 1514‐1517.

Hennessey, B.A., & Amabile, T.M. (2010). Creativity. Annual Review Psychology, 61, 569‐598.

Horn, J. L., & Cattell, R. B. (1966). Refinement and test of the theory of fluid and crystallized general
intelligences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 57(5), 253‐270.

Hunt, M. (2009). The story of psychology. Random House, LLC.

Kohler, W. (1924). The mentality of apes. Harcourt, Brace.

Lopes, P. N., Grewal, D., Kadis, J., Gall, M., & Salovey, P. (2006). Evidence that emotional intelligence is
related to job performance and affect and attitudes at work. Psicothema, 18(Suppl.), 132–138.

Martens, A., Johns, M., Greenberg, J., & Schimel, J. (2006). Combating stereotype threat: The effect of
self‐affirmation on women’s intellectual performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(2),
236‐243.

Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey & D. J. Sluyter (Eds.),
Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Educational implications (pp. 3–34). Basic Books.

National Spelling Bee. (2014a). Statistics. Retrieved from: http://www.spellingbee.com/statistics

National Spelling Bee. (2014b). Get to Know the Competition. Retrieved from:

http://www.spellingbee.com/UserFiles/topblog‐‐‐‐good2341418.html

Neisser, U., Boodoo, G., Bouchard, Jr., T.J., Boykin, A. W., Brody, N., Ceci, S., Halpern, D., Loehlin, J. C.,
Perloff, R., Sternberg, R. J. & Urbina, S. (1996). Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns. American
Psychologist, 51, 77‐101.

Neisser, U. (1997). Rising scores on intelligence tests. American Scientist, 85, 440–447.

Neisser, U. (Ed.). (1998). The rising curve. American Psychological Association.

Nisbett, R. E., Aronson, J., Blair, C., Dickens, W., Flynn, J., Halpern, D. F., & Turkheimer, E. (2012).
Intelligence: new findings and theoretical developments. American Psychologist, 67(2), 130‐160.

Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology:
Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262–
274.

18
 PYC1501/Intelligence and creativity/OER/2022

Simonton, D. K. (2001). The psychology of creativity: a historical perspective. Davis, CA: Green College
Lecture Series on The Nature of Creativity: History Biology, and Socio‐Cultural Dimensions. University of
British Columbia.

Spearman, C. (1904). "General Intelligence," Objectively Determined and Measured. The American Journal
of Psychology, 15(2), 201‐292.

Spencer, S. J., Steele, C. M., & Quinn, D. M. (1999). Stereotype threat and women's math performance.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35(1), 4‐28.

Steitz, T. A. (2010). From the structure and function of the ribosome to new antibiotics (Nobel Lecture).
Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 49(26), 4381‐4398.

Sternberg, R. (1995). In search of the human mind. 2nd edition. Harcourt Brace.

Terman, L. M. (1916). The measurement of intelligence: An explanation of and a complete guide for the
use of the Stanford revision and extension of the Binet‐Simon Intelligence Scale. Houghton Mifflin.

Thurston, L. (1947). Multiple factor analysis. University of Chicago Press.

Van Deventer, V., & Mojapelo‐Batka, M. (2013). A students’ A‐Z of psychology. Juta.

Wechsler, D. (1955). Manual for the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale. Oxford: Psychological Corporation.

Weisberg, R. W. (2006). Creativity: Understanding innovation in problem solving, science, invention, and
the arts. John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Weiten, W. & Hassim, J. (2016). Variations in psychology (2nd South African edition). Cengage learning.

19