Internet Information

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1985, Vol. 48, No. 4, 1033-1040

Copyright 1985 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 0022-3514/85/S00.75

Effect of Sex, Intelligence, and Style of Thinking on Creativity: A Comparison of Gifted and Average IQ Children

John R. Kershner and Gwen Ledger Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

Thirty gifted children (15 boys and 15 girls, aged 9-11) were compared to 30 average children on Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (1974) and left hemisphere, right hemisphere, and integrated, thinking styles. The results showed that sex, IQ, and thinking style each have an effect on different dimensions of children's creativity. Girls, irrespective of their IQ level and thinking style, scored higher than boys consistently across the seven creativity subscales, reaching statistical significance in verbal and figural fluency. Gifted boys and girls, independent of their thinking style, were better than the nongifted children but only in verbal originality. The integrated thinking style was related to creativity on the Elaboration and figural Flexibility subtests. The results support the relative independence of select facets of children's creativity from general intellectual factors; but also suggest that performance on each of the creativity subtests may be strongly influenced by different psychological, intellectual and, perhaps, social factors.

Some of the ongoing controversy sur- rounding the concept of creativity involves how much it is influenced by sex role iden- tification, general intellectual ability (IQ), and type of problem-solving strategy (Fox, 1981; Glover, in press; Kirk & Gallagher, 1983; Torrance & Sato, 1979).

For instance, Getzels and Jackson (1958), Guilford (1950) and Torrance (1977) have maintained that creativity and intelligence are orthogonal mental attributes and that gifted children and average-IQ children should be more or less creative depending on their thinking style or preferred manner of coping with reality. Accordingly, creative thinking might be influenced primarily by a range of IQ-independent, individual differences in the manner in which problems or life experiences are approached. Torrance (1975) has found that correlations, generally, are quite low between IQ and his battery of creativity tests whereas studies with graduate students (mostly female) have shown a statistical re- lation between thinking styles and creativity

We thank Bill Postl, of the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, for his assistance with the statistical com- putations.

Requests for reprints should be sent to John Kershner, the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Department of Special Education, 252 Bloor Street West, Toronto, Canada M5S 1V6.

(Torrance & Mourad, 1978; Torrance & Mourad, 1979; Torrance & Reynolds, 1979).

In these studies, Torrance's Your Style of Learning and Thinking Test, which yields hemisphericity profiles of right hemisphere, left hemisphere, and integrated (both hemi- spheres) styles of thinking, has shown typically that the verbal-linearly inclined, left-hemi- sphere style is related to less creativity than right-hemisphere and interhemisphere styles. However, the inference from these studies that a stronger relation exists between such thinking styles and creativity than between IQ and creativity is restricted to highly intel- ligent, adult females. The possible biasing influence of age, a narrow range of sampled intelligence, and sex on these findings is unknown.

Reflecting this uncertain state-of-aflairs, some current reviewers have concluded that only a weak relation exists between IQ and creativity (Glover, Bruning, & Filbeck, 1983); whereas others, presumably reading the same research, have maintained that intellectual superiority is the primary determining factor in creative performance (Kirk & Gallagher, 1983). A middle position that has not received the attention from educators that it may deserve was argued by Wallach (1970) in a review of correlational studies between IQ and Torrance's creativity battery. Wallach

1033

1034 JOHN R. KERSHNER AND OWEN LEDGER

found that only the items from the Fluency subtest showed consistently stronger coherence among themselves than with IQ. He main- tained that the remaining subtest (Originality, Flexibility, Elaboration) were largely measures of IQ. Thus we have three possibilities; IQ is or is not related to creativity or IQ is related to specific components of creativity and un- related to other components. These possibil- ities directly address the construct validity of the Torrance creativity measures.

Also, cross-cultural research with the Torr- ance Tests of Creative Thinking (Torrance, 1974) suggests that socioeconomic and polit- ical change through its influence on sex role identification can have a strong impact on children's measured creativity. Raina (1980) reported a reversal in sex differences in cre- ativity over a 10-year period in India. In 1969, boys in India had shown a consistent superiority on both the Verbal and Figural tests, retesting a decade later revealed that the advantage in both verbal and figural creativity had shifted in favor of the girls. In a review of studies reported between 1958 and 1974, Maccoby and Jacklin (1974) found that on verbal tests of creative ability there were no sex differences in the early school years, but from about age 7 in most studies, girls showed an advantage. However, in non- verbal creativity no clear trend across studies has been discerned.

In studies using the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking, Ogletree (1971) with a large sample of 1,165 English, Scottish, and German children, 8-11 years old, found that the English and German girls were superior to boys on the verbal and figural battery; no sex difference was found in the Scottish chil- dren. In contrast, Torrance and Aliotti (1969), with a sample of 10-year-old rural Wisconsin children, found that girls excelkd on all of the verbal tests and on the figural elaboration test but that boys were superior to girls in figural originality and flexibility. Torrance and Aliotti interpreted this as resulting from greater sociocultural encouragement for boys to be original and divergent with nonverbal concepts and relatively greater social pressures for girls to develop skills that require verbal reinforcement.

It appears therefore that the contemporary social climate in many democratic countries,

perhaps interacting with biological factors (Inglis & Lawson, 1981), may give girls a statistical advantage on measures of verbal creativity as well as in a variety of other verbal, cognitive functions (Burstein, Bank, & Jarrik, 1980). However, although girls in the United States have been reported (Benbow & Stanley, 1980) to be at a disadvantage in certain nonverbal educational abilities, the changing social climate in Canada and else- where makes it hazardous to predict whether boys or girls will show an advantage in non- verbal and figural creativity.

In this study, gifted children and children of average IQ were assessed on Torrance's measures of creativity and thinking styles to investigate the effect of IQ, sex, and preferred styles of thinking on verbal and nonverbal creativity.

Method

Subjects

Sixty right-handed children, aged 9-11 and in grades 4, 5, and 6 participated in the study. Thirty of the students (15 boys and 15 girls) were selected randomly from a Metropolitan Toronto public school program for gifted children. The entrance criteria for the gifted pro- gram were teacher selection and an IQ of 130 or more on the Otis-Lennon Test of Mental Abilities (Otis & Lennon, 1967). The gifted children were matched on handedness, age, and sex to 30 children with recorded IQs between 95-110 selected from mainstream classes. Individual IQ scores were not made available.

Materials and Procedure

The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking, Verbal and Figural, Form A (Torrance, 1974) were administered to both groups of children. These instruments were designed to measure specific kinds of creative thinking, and both are open-ended in nature, encouraging the children to be as creative as possible and to respond according to personal experiences. Raw scores were transformed into a standard score with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. The Verbal test consists of seven subtasks from which three scales are derived: Fluency (total number of ideas produced); Flexibility (ability to produce different types of ideas); and Originality (ability to produce nonobvious, yet appropriate, ideas). The test shows strong interrater and test-retest reliabilities (Torrance, 1974, pp. 16-20) and both concurrent and predictive validity (Torr- ance, 1974, pp. 35-47). Moreover, the tasks involve actual creative output. For example, in one task the child is presented with a toy elephant and is asked to "list the cleverest, most interesting and unusual ways you can think of changing the toy in order to make it more fun to play with". The Figural test consists of three subtasks, from which four subtests are derived: three of these

SEX, THINKING STYLES, AND IQ AFFECT CREATIVITY 1035

(Fluency, Flexibility, and Originality) are similar to those described for the Verbal test; the new subtest (Elaboration) reflects a person's ability to "develop, embroider, embellish, carry out, or otherwise elaborate ideas" (Torrance, 1974, p. 59). The score on these tasks, also, has shown high reliability and predictive validity. Torrance has presented data indicating that the subtests are composed of separate factors (Torrance, 1974) in a structure of intellect frame- work.

Learning and thinking styles in both groups was assessed through the use of Your Style of Learning and Thinking, Children's Form B (Reynolds, Kaltsounis, & Torrance, 1979). This is a 40-item self-analysis, multiple-choice questionnaire that provides three scores representing the total number of preferences categorized as right-, left-, and integrated, hemisphere choices. For purposes of analysis the integrated choices (I) were simply tallied for each child and the left and right choices were treated similarly or were combined into a single R - L index using the formula R - L/R + L X 100.

Each item on the test presents the child with three choices, one that is associated with the known specializated functions of the right hemisphere, one that reflects the specialized functions of the left hemisphere, and one that is associated with the combined functions of both hemi- spheres: The latter category is called an integrated choice and, therefore, represents the integrated hemispheric style of thinking. The idea that multidimensional and task- invariant differences in styles of learning may hinge on selective cerebral dominance, has been term hemisphericity (Gur & Gur, 1980). The literature basis for the proposition that hemisphericity might be useful as a predictor of thinking styles goes back to a series of articles by Bakan (1971), Bogen (1969), and Ornstein (1972). Ornstein, for instance, related hemispheric activation differences to individual differences in logical (left hemisphere) versus intuitive (right hemisphere) cognitive styles. Bakan pro- posed a similar classification scheme for "right brained" and "left brained" persons. Right hemisphere items on

the test reflect a problem-solving preference for nonverbal, unstructured, holistic, intuitive, and visuo-spatial ap- proaches. Left hemisphere items reveal'a preference for linear, verbal, rational, orderly, and inductive approaches. Integrated preferences show a liking for both verbal and nonverbal problem-solving orientations. We decided to use the Thinking Styles test because of its appealing neuropsychological reference (Levy, Heller, Banich, & Burton, 1983) and because of its current popularity in the literature on gifted children (Gowan, 1979; Katz, 1979; McCallum & Glynn, 1979; Sterling & Taylor, 1980).

The Creativity and Thinking Styles tests were admin- istered in group sessions. For the Thinking Styles test, the children were given copies of the questions and an answer sheet and the teacher read each of the questions to the children and helped them through the test.

Results

Effect oflQ, Sex, and Style of Thinking on Creativity

To test for differences in creativity due to the intellectual level (IQ, sex, and thinking styles of the children, seven separate 2 X 2 analyses of covariance (ANCOVAS) were com- puted: two for fluency (verbal and figural); two for flexibility (verbal and figural); two for originality (verbal and figural); and one for elaboration (figural). Each analysis was a 2 X 2 X 2 Group (Gifted, Average) X Sex (Male, Female) ANCOVA with thinking styles (I and R - L index) as covariates. (See Table 1).

Table 1 Mean Scores in Creativity by High and Average IQ Groups and Sex

Tests

Fluency Originality Flexibility Elaboration

M SD M SD M SD M SD

Gifted Male Female

Gifted Male Female

Average Male

Female

15 15

15 15

15 15

Verbal

51.26 55.60

5.88 7.04

55.20 56.33

6.34 5.21

53.93 55.73

6.63 8.89

Average Male Female

15 15

49.33 53.33

6.83 . 9.71

50.53 52.33

6.98 7.00

51.53 53.53

7.14 — 8.01 — —

Figural

44.53 47.06

44.46 53.26

5.88 7.04

8.84 14.53

60.80 61.46

54.33 61.00

10.89 14.31

8.81 15.05

49.13 52.56

49.66 52.86

4.20 7.98

10.02 10.54

65.00 70.20

60.66 66.66

14.07 15.91

18.30 13.54

1036 JOHN R. KERSHNER AND GWEN LEDGER

No significant IQ or sex differences emerged on either the Elaboration (figural) or Flexi- bility (verbal and figural) subtests. However, the Integrated (I) thinking style that was used as one of the covariates showed a statistically significant relation to both elaboration, F ( l , 56) = 4.95, p < .03, and verbal flexibility, F(l, 56) = 8.10, p < .006. Subsequent analyses showed that greater integrated thinking styles + preferences were related to higher creativity scores on these measures. In both verbal and figural fluency, a main effect for sex was found, revealing that the girls in both the gifted and regular classes were superior to the boys: verbal fluency, F(\, 56) = 4.38, p < .04 and figural fluency, F(\, 56) = 4.55, p < .03. Neither of the covariates were sig- nificantly related to fluency; but an unad- justed, combined verbal-figural analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed an even greater female advantage, F ( l , 56) = 7.30, p < .009. Also, girls showed a nonsignificant mean advantage over boys on each of the remaining subscales. Analysis of the originality scores showed a main effect for group, revealing that the gifted children compared with the average children were better in verbal but not figural originality, F(l, 56) = 5.37, p < .02. Again, the covariates were nonsignificant. None of the interactions were significant.

For each analysis, whenever the covariates were nonsignificant, an ANOVA was computed. None of the ANOVAS produced different find- ings; so, we report primarily the ANCOVA results. Thus, the absence of a strong effect of intelligence on creativity was not caused by relations between the covariate (thinking style) and IQ.

Finally, an overall ANCOVA combining all of the subtests into a single score for each

child showed a significant female superiority, F(\, 56) = 4.30, p < .04. The covariate, the integrated style of thinking, was also signifi- cant, F(\, 56) = 8.06, p < .006.

Effect oflQ and Sex on Style of Thinking

To test for IQ and sex differences in styles of thinking, three 2 X 2 ANOVAS, Group (Gifted, Average) X Sex (Male, Female) were computed. The number of left, right and integrated preferences, out of a total of 40 questions, was entered as the unit of mea- surement for each statistical test. (See Table 2).

The only statistically significant effect showed that the average children preferred the left-hemisphere style of thinking to a greater extent than the gifted children, F(l, 56) = 4.73, p < .03.

Four Group Comparison on Thinking Styles Based on High-Low Splits, IQ, and Creativity

On the basis of a median-score split of each child's composite creativity score and knowledge of IQ, four groups were created: High IQ-High creative (9 girls and 6 boys); High IQ-Low creative (6 girls and 9 boys); Low IQ-High creative (10 girls and 5 boys); Low IQ-Low creative (5 girls and 10 boys).

Three separate 2 X 2 ANOVAS were com- puted on the integrated, the right and the left preferences. The factors entered into this two-way analysis were IQ (High-Low) and Creativity (High-Low). The integrated analysis showed a main effect for creativity, F( 1, 56) = 5.08, p < .02. This result further substantiates the main analysis showing that highly creative children irrespective of their IQ preferred the

Table 2 Mean Scores on Styles of Thinking by High and Average IQ Groups and Sex

Group

Right hemisphere Left hemisphere

M SD M SD

Integrated

M SD

Gifted Male Female

Average Male Female

15 15

15 15

13.20 13.40

13.13 12.00

4.82 3.94

4.48 3.44

9.73 9.20

11.53 11.13

2.19 3.68

3.44 3.20

16.86 17.33

15.33 15.93

5.46 4.28

5.67 4.55

SEX, THINKING STYLES, AND IQ AFFECT CREATIVITY 1037

Table 3 Mean Scores on Thinking Styles by High and Average IQ Groups and Sex

Group

Right hemisphere Left hemisphere

M SD M SD

Integrated

M SD

High IQ-High Creative High IQ-Low Creative Low IQ-High Creative Low IQ-Low Creative

15 15 15 15

11.20 15.40 12.53 12.60

2.83 4.62 4.54 3.46

9.93 9.00

10.80 11.86

3.63 2.93 3.25 3.31

18.86 15.33 16.66 14.60

5.39 3.53 5.45 4.61

integrated thinking style. The left-hemisphere analysis duplicates the results shown on Table 2. There was a main effect for IQ, F(\, 56) = 4.82, p < .03, indicating that highly intelligent children irrespective of whether they were creative showed a dislike for the left- hemisphere style. The integrated and left anal- ysis interactions were nonsignificant. The right- hemisphere analysis produced a significant two-way interaction, F = 4.13, p < .04, show- ing that the High IQ-Low creative children in comparison with all three other groups had a higher preference for the right style. This shows that although all less creative children have a lower preference for the integrated style than creative children, those in the low-creative category with high IQs prefer, instead, more right-hemisphere items and those with low IQs prefer more left-hemisphere choices. With the exception of the High IQ-Low creative children who displayed an equal liking for integrated and right choices, all of the remain- ing groups showed a preference for the inte- grated style of thinking.

Discussion

The purpose of the study was to investigate the effects of sex, intelligence, and style of thinking on children's creativity as measured by Torrance's comprehensive battery of Verbal and Figural tests. Throughout, the results are consistent in showing that sex, IQ, and think- ing styles each have relatively independent effects on creativity and that each affects primarily specific facets of creativity. The results indicated that children with high IQs compared to average-IQ children, regardless of their sex and independent of thinking style, were more creative but only in verbal origi- nality.

The findings also indicated that girls com- pared with boys, regardless of IQ level and independent of their preferred thinking style, were more creative in verbal and figural fluency. The third major finding was a positive relation between children's preference for the integrated style of thinking (over right and left styles) and creativity, and this was espe- cially true in elaboration and verbal flexibility. Also, the data showed that sex was indepen- dent of thinking style; but IQ was not. Chil- dren with average IQs compared with the gifted children showed a stronger preference for the left-hemisphere style.

Taking the results overall into considera- tion, some general comments can be made. On the one hand, the findings support Torr- ance's (1977) theoretical position that general intellectual superiority is not in large measure a necessary condition for creativity. These data, clearly, do not support the competing theoretical proposition that IQ is the primary predisposing element in children's potential for creative behavior (Kirk & Gallagher, 1983). On the other hand, the significant relation that was found between IQ level and verbal Originality, questions the construct validity of this subtest from the Torrance battery and supports Wallach's (1970) contention that some of the subtests may be coterminous with IQ, whereas others may not be. Origi- nality was a subtest singled out by Wallach for its item-construct similarity with tests of intelligence.

Our results showed that gifted children were better than average-IQ children in verbal Originality, which implies that the ability to invent widely divergent, yet useful, ideas is a mental trait that is related to the intellectual superiority of the gifted child. But, the gifted children had no advantage on the other in- dices of creativity. For example, the gifted

1038 JOHN R. KERSHNER AND GWEN LEDGER

children plainly had no advantage over the nongifted children in figural fluency and in figural flexibility. This indicates that the ability to produce a great number of different non- verbal solutions to problems and to shift categories to a variety of widely ranging solutions is unrelated to general IQ. These data directly contradict current textbook teachings that downgrade the creative poten- tial of average IQ children (Kirk & Gallagher, 1983). We can draw several inferences. Firstly, intelligence, across the range sampled in our study, is not divorced from certain kinds of high creative potential. Because the future of society depends to a large extent on the contributions made to society by people who are both highly creative and highly intelligent, this finding reinforces the priority that should be placed on the quality of educational op- portunities provided for gifted children. Sec- ondly, the results highlight the importance of taking steps to identify those nongifted chil- dren who are highly creative and to make ample educational provisions for them.

Fortunately, what may be the most contro- versial result was also a strong effect statisti- cally: Girls, irrespective of their IQ levels and thinking styles, showed a greater ability than the boys to produce a range of possible solutions to problems on the Fluency subtests, holding true for both their verbal and figural problem-solving ability. Furthermore, there was a consistent female advantage over males across every creativity subtest.

This female advantage in verbal and figural creativity is compatible with Raina's (1980) research in India and with Ogletree's (1971) findings with a large sample of English and German children. On the other hand, because the results differed from Torrance and Aliotti (1969) who found that boys were superior to girls in figural originality and flexibility, we thought that perhaps the boys in our sample might have been depressed in their general test taking attitude. So, we compared our mean scores to the range of mean scores obtained by Torrance and Aliotti (1969). Except for slightly lower scores in figural fluency, the boys in our sample performed at higher levels than the boys in the Torrance and Aliotti study. Therefore, the female su- priority in the present study resulted from

the girls' relatively better performance rather than from generally decreased or depressed male performance.

In view of Wallach's (1970) argument that of all the subscales, Fluency is the least contaminated by general intelligence and in view of the fact that this female supremacy in creativity occurred independently of think- ing style, this finding warrants further re- search. We need to attempt to identify the underlying causative factors and we need to know whether this advantage carries through adolescence, a period of heightened cognitive and emotional changes. One possible expla- nation for this result and for the apparent cross-cultural trend toward female superiority in figural creativity is that the culture-bound associational link between masculinity and nonverbal areas of knowledge and experience may be breaking down. The reasons for find- ing a female advantage as opposed to more nearly equal male and female performance is a problematic issue that requires more re- search. At least one study does indicate that girls profit more than boys from classroom environments designed to foster creativity (Thomas & Berk, 1981).

The comparatively strong relation between thinking style and elaboration and figural flexibility compared with the weak relation between IQ and these subtests adds further support for Torrance's (1977) theoretical po- sition. The data favor the view that many facets of creativity are IQ-independent (given a minimum level or threshold) at least within the age and IQ range sampled. Moreover, the positive relation between the Integrated hemispheric preference and higher creativity is consistent with the empirical findings of Torrance and his colleagues with female grad- uate students. Such similar findings suggest a degree of generalizability.

Lastly, breaking the children into four groups based on high-low splits in IQ and creativity showed, additionally, that the av- erage IQ children had a greater preference than the gifted for the left-hemisphere style, which emphasizes logical, sequential, linear, thinking and attention to verbal detail. The right hemisphere responses are characterized by a preference for holistic, nonlinear think- ing; intuitive and analogical ways of solving

SEX, THINKING STYLES, AND IQ AFFECT CREATIVITY 1039

problems; and attention to visual, concrete, spatial, kinesthetic, emotional, and aesthetic information. The integrated choice reflects a liking for some combination of left and right. This analysis showed further that the highly creative children, irrespective of IQ, preferred the integrated thinking style with a near- equal balance between right and left. But, the low-creative children, all of whom showed fewer integrated responses, selected the right hemisphere choice if they had high IQs and the left hemisphere choice if they had low IQs. Unquestionably, because actual left- and right-hemispheric processing cannot be ex- pected to conform to such a simple dichot- omy, these results should be interpreted as implicating problem-solving styles rather than valid features of our neuropsychological makeup. Further research will be necessary to unravel the psychological and neuropsy- chological factors behind these differences in thinking style.

In summary, the results showed that among a sample of preadolescents, intellectually gifted girls with an integrated hemispheric thinking style had an advantage across a broad range of verbal and figural creativity measures. Average IQ children were found to have high potential for certain facets of cre- ative performance and to show a preference in comparison to gifted children for the left- hemisphere style of thinking. The integrated thinking style showed clear relation to cre- ativity.

References

Bakan, P. (1971). The eyes have it. Psychology Today, 4, 64-69.

Benbow, C., & Stanley, J. (1980). Sex differences in mathematical ability: Fact or artifact? Science, 212, 1262-2164.

Bogen, J. (1969). The other side of the brain: Parts I and II. Bulletin of the Los Angeles Neurological Society, 34, 73-105, 135-162.

Burstein, B., Bank, L., & Jarrik, L. (1980). Sex differences in cognitive functioning: Evidence, determinants, im- plications. Human Development, 23, 289-313.

Fox, L. (1981). Identification of the academically gifted. American Psychologist, 36, 1103-1 111.

Getzels, J., & Jackson, P. (1958). The meaning of "gift- edness"-An examination of an expanding concept. Phi Delta Kappan, 40, 275-277.

Glover, J., Bruning, R., & Filbeck, R. (1983). Educational psychology. Toronto: Little, Brown.

Glover, J. (in press). Levels of questions asked in interview and reading sessions by creative and relatively non- creative college students. The Journal of Genetic Psy- chology.

Gowan, J. (1979). The production of creativity through right hemisphere imagery. Journal of Creative Behavior, 13, 39-51.

Guilford, J. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444-454.

Gur, R., & Gur, R. (1980). Handedness and individual differences in hemispheric activation. In J. Herron (Ed.), Neuropsychology of Left-Handedness (pp. 211- 223). Toronto: Academic Press.

Inglis, J., & Lawson, J. (1981). Sex differences in the effects of unilateral brain damage on intelligence. Science, 212, 693-695.

Katz, A. (1979). Creativity and the right cerebral hemi- sphere: Towards a physiologically based theory of creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 12, 253-264.

Kirk, S., & Gallagher, J. (1983). Educating Exceptional Children: (4th ed.). Dallas: Houghton Mifflin.

Levy, J., Heller, W., Banich, M, & Burton, L. (1983). Are variations among right-handed individuals in per- ceptual asymmetries caused by characteristic arousal differences between hemispheres? Journal of Experi- mental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 9, 38-62.

Maccoby, E., & Jacklin, C. (1974). The Psychology of Sex Differences. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

McCallum, R., & Glynn, S. (1979). Hemispheric spe- cialization and creative behavior. Journal of Creative Behavior, 13, 263-273.

Ogletree, E. (1971). A cross-cultural examination of the creative thinking ability of public and private school pupils in England, Scotland, and Germany. Journal of Social Psychology, 83, 301-302.

Ornstein, R. (1972). The Psychology of Consciousness. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.

Otis, A., & Lennon, R. (1967). Otis Lennon Test of Mental Abilities. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.

Raina, T. (1980). Sex differences in creativity in India: A Second look. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 14, 218-219.

Reynolds, C., Kaltsounis, B., & Torrance, P. (1979). A children's form of your style of learning and thinking: Preliminary norms and technical data. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 23, 757-766.

Sterling, S., & Taylor, I. (1980). Creative self-perception, hemispheric laterality and sex differences. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 13, 274-275.

Thomas, N., & Berk, L. (1981). Effects of school envi- ronments on the development of young children's creativity. Child Development, 51, 1153-1162.

Torrance, P. (1974). Norms-Technical Manual: Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Lexington, MA: Personal Press/Ginn & Company.

Torrance, P. (1975). Creativity research in education: Still alive. In I. Taylor & J. Getzels (Eds.), Perspective in Creativity. Chicago: Aldine.

Torrance, P. (1977). Creatively gifted and disadvantaged gifted students. In J. Stanley, W. George, & C. Solano (Eds.), The gifted and the creative: A fifty-year perspec-

1040 JOHN R. KERSHNER AND GWEN LEDGER

live (pp. 124-143). Baltimore, John Hopkins University Press.

Torrance, P., & Aliotti, N. (1969). Sex differences in levels of performance and test-retest reliability on the Torrance Tests of Creative Ability. Journal of Creative Behavior, 3, 52-57.

Torrance, P., & Mourad, S. (1978). Some creativity and style of learning and thinking correlates of Gugliemino's self-directed learning readiness scale. Psychological Re- ports, 43, 1167-1171.

Torrance, P., & Mourad, S. (1979). Role of hemisphericity in performance on selected measures of creativity. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 23, 44-55.

Torrance, P., & Reynolds, C. (1979). Norms-Technical Manual for Your Style of Learning and Thinking— Form C. Athens, GA: The University of Georgia.

Torrance, P., & Sato, S. (1979). Differences in Japanese and United States styles of thinking. Creative Child and Adult Quarterly, 4, 145-151.

Wallach, M. (1970). Creativity. In J. Carmichael (Ed.), Manual of Child Psychology: 3rd ed. Toronto: Wiley.

Received March 8, 1983 Revision received November 15, 1983