Synthetic-creative intelligence

and psychometric intelligence:

analysis of threshold theory and creative
process depending on students IQ

Mercedes Ferrando, Lola Prieto, Gloria Soto,

Marta Sinz, Mari-Carmen Fernndez.

(mferran@um.es)
ICTDE 2013 International Conference on Talent Development & Excellence,
Antalya, Turkey: 25-28 September.
How both constructs may be related

Different constructs One is included in the other They overlap each They are the same
 Literature review
CLASSICAL STUDIES:
Correlations and mean differences: Getzels & Jackson, 1962 ,
Guilford & Hoepfner, 1971; Torrance, 1962
LATEST STUDIES:
Correlations: Pereira de Barros, et al. (2010)
Meta-analysis Kim en 2005
Regression analysis (predictions) Olatoye and Oyundoyin,
(2007); Naderi and Abdullah (2010)
Structural Equation Modelling: Nushaum and Silvia
(2011)
Means comparison: Preckel, Holling and Wise,2006; Palaniappan
(2007),
Study of peoples cognitive profile depending on their
creative level Ferrando, et al., (2012)
 OUR STUDY
How can we contribute to the study of intelligence-
creativity relationship?

Our thoughts
Their relationship may change over children
development (Theory of differentiation)

Intelligence may influence the creative process (not just

the outcome), high IQ may have a learning process
during the task, and perform better at the end of the
task.
 Our aims:
To study the relationship between intelligence
and creativity, controlling the effect of grade (
age)
to study possible differences on the creative
process depending on students level of
intelligence.

Sample:
Empirical Study: Instruments
5 Creativity task from Aurora Battery (Chart,
Grigorenko & Sternberg, 2008)
Soto (2012) who adapted these task to the Spanish
population the task shown a reliability of =.75 for
figurative language, .76 for unanimated
conversations, .71 for numerical conversations, .78
for multiple uses and .73 for book covers.

Cattells g factor (Cattell & Cattell, 2001)

Spearma-Brown .86
 SUCCESFUL INTELIGENCE

Sternberg's Triarchic Model:

Balancing Three Types of Thinking

Analytical Creative Practical

Solving logical Applying
problems Imagining knowledge

Comparing and Designing Leading

contrasting
Finding new Persuading
Deducing solutions
Having tacit
Classifying Inventing understanding
7
 AURORA BATTERY
OBSERVATION
PAPER AND PENCIL TEACHERS AND
TEST PARENTS REPORTS Aurora o

Aurora-g Aurora i
LEGOS
Aurora-a 9 subtest
17 subtest
Series Figurative
Interview Observation o The Creature
Classifications Verbal
Analogies Numerical parents scale o Mental Rotation
Teachers o Watch and Build

Analytical Creative Practical

BATERA
Tan gramsAURORA
Book covers Paper cutting
Figurative
Floating boats Multiple uses Toy shadows
Homonym blanks Personifications Silly headlines
Verbal
Limited metaphors Figurative language Decisions

Letter math Logistics mapping

Numerical Number talk
Algebra Money exchange
8
CREATIVE BOOK COVERS
DIRECTIONS:

Imagine that the pictures below are covers of books for kids.
What could these books be about? Be creative and describe
the stories that might be in these books. Use your
imagination! There are no wrong answers.

Example:
This story is about a magical box that
some kids find. It says Warning:
Secrets Inside. When they open it,
bubbles come out. In each bubble
there is a different secret. They pop
the bubbles to learn the secrets and
make a promise to only tell the good
secrets to other people.
9
CREATIVE MULTIPLE USES
DIRECTIONS:

Below are pictures of everyday things. You know how these

things are normally used, but they could have other uses, too.
Pretend that you are an inventor and think of three BRAND
NEW ways to use each thing. Remember, you must think of
NEW things to do with these objects. Be as creative as you
can!

Example:
USE 1: Use it to flatten flowers that you want to
keep.
USE 2: Tape a string to it and use it for a
fishing rod that you can wind up.

USE 3: Put paint on it and use it to paint stripes.

A rolling pin 10
CREATIVE NUMBER TALK

DIRECTIONS:

Here are some interesting questions using cartoon

numbers. Read the questions and use your imagination
to answer them in a creative way. There are no wrong
answers!

Example: 2 and 4 get along so

Number 2 and number 4 well because they
are talking, and they are have a lot in common!
having a really good time. They are both even
Why are 2 and 4 getting numbers. 2 is happy that
along so well? when he is added to
another 2, they are like 4.

And 4 thinks its great that when 2 and 4 get together they make 24, the
number of hours in a day!
11
PERSONIFICATIO
NS
DIRECTIONS:
Of course only people can talk to each other with
words. But what if other things could talk, too?
What would they say to each other? Write a
conversation between the two things in each
question. Be creative! Write what they say after
their names. There are no wrong answers.

Example:
Tree :
Hey, tree-house, youre too heavy. I want to put
you down!
Tree-house :
Sorry, tree. Its your job to hold onto me!
---------------------------------------------------------
1. Fork :
12
Knife :
 FIGURATIVE
CREATIVE
LANGUAGE
DIRECTIONS:

Below are some sentences from stories. The

underlined parts say something in an
interesting way.

For example, My mum . says its raining cats and

dogs! doesnt mean that cats and dogs are
falling from the sky. It means that it is raining
very hard.

Think about what these sentences really mean.

Then choose the sentence that would make the
most sense if it came next in the story. 13
 Procedure
Grouping

Low IQ Average IQ High IQ

>75 75-115 > 115
 Results
CORRELATIONS:
IQ has statistical significant correlations with the five tasks of
creativity
Figurative language r=.34, p<.001;
Unanimated conversations r=.28, p<.001;
Numerical conversations r=.15, p= ,004;
Multiple uses r=,363, p<.001;
Book covers r= ,269, p<.001.
Individual differences: Creativity
35
depending on IQ level
30 Low IQ
25 Averg, IQ
20 High IQ
15

10

0
What hapen when looking for combined
effect IQ and Grade?
Are there Differences on the creative process depending on students
intelligence level?

Multi
ple u
s es
Mu l
tiple
us es Unan
Unanima im ate co
ted conv nvers
e rsations .
Mu
ltipl
eU
se s

nversa.
Numerical co

Fig. language

AVERAGE IQ HIGH IQ
LOW IQ

Fig.Language Inanimateconversations Numericalconversations Multipleuses Bookcovers

 Conclusions (I)
The results do not confirm the threshold hypothesis:
The relationship between the both constructs is significant
but with low magnitude. We need to have into account that
according to the differentiation theory (Austin, Deary & Gibson,
1997), higher correlations between constructs are expected in
younger participants, which has not been the case.

When studying the differences depending on students IQ,

the higher IQ group significantly perform better than the
other groups. If the threshold theory was to be confirmed,
average and high IQ groups will not differ in their creative level.
 Conclusions (II)
Students with lower IQ show more stability in their creation
process, whereas average and high IQ students show a process with
highs and picks.

For the multiple uses and unanimated conversations tasks

students show higher creativity at the beginning. These task do
not require specific knowledge, instead of seeing and effect of
learning, it appears an effect of tiredness.

In figurative language and in numerical conversations there is a

significant gaining of creativity in the second half of the task. It
is possible that students get used to the style and metaphors
used in the task and they can perform better when they have
some experience with it.
Thank you
Very much
for your
attention
Email: mferran@um.es
 Differences on the creative process depending on students intelligence level

t(123
)= 3,
649;
t(221 p
Multi = ,00
)= 5, p le us 0
Multi 338; p=
es

ple u ,000 t(121

s )= 4,
Unanima e s Unan 402; p=
ted conv imate ,000
t(20 t(225)= 5 ersation conve
)=
Mu
lti p ,530; p= s rs.
2,27 le Uses ,000
9; p
22 0 )= -2 ,46 0; p= ,015
= ,0 t(
34 Numerical co
nversa .

; p= ,036
t(124)= -2,12u0age
Fig. lang

AVERAGE IQ HIGH IQ
LOW IQ

Fig.Language Inanimateconversations Numericalconversations Multipleuses Bookcovers

Conclusions
What is the relationship between Creativity and intelligence?

Different constructs One is included in the other They overlap each They are the same
other
Contemporary creativity research views intelligence and creativity as distinct
traits that are only modestly related.

Cognitive Theories of intelligence

No a g factor
i.e. Sternberg (1985), Gardner (1983)

Importance of students Cognitive proflile

 Synthetic-creative intelligence and psychometric
intelligence:
analysis of threshold theory and creative process depending on students IQ

Mercedes Ferrando, Lola Prieto,

Gloria Soto, Marta Sinz,
Mari-Carmen Fernndez.

ICTDE 2013 International Conference on Talent Development & Excellence,

Antalya, Turkey: 25-28 September.
RESULTS: MEAN DIFFERENCES
 Synthetic-creative intelligence and psychometric
intelligence:
analysis of threshold theory and creative process depending on students IQ

Mercedes Ferrando, Lola Prieto,

Gloria Soto, Marta Sinz,
Mari-Carmen Fernndez.

ICTDE 2013 International Conference on Talent Development & Excellence,

Antalya, Turkey: 25-28 September.
 Differences on the creative process depending on students intelligence level

t(123
)= 3,
649;
t(221 p
Multi = ,00
)= 5, p le us 0
Multi 338; p=
es

ple u ,000 t(121

s )= 4,
Unanima e s Unan 402; p=
ted conv imate ,000
t(20 t(225)= 5 ersation conve
)=
Mu
lti p ,530; p= s rs.
2,27 le Uses ,000
9; p
22 0 )= -2 ,46 0; p= ,015
= ,0 t(
34 Numerical co
nversa .

; p= ,036
t(124)= -2,12u0age
Fig. lang

AVERAGE IQ HIGH IQ
LOW IQ

Fig.Language Inanimateconversations Numericalconversations Multipleuses Bookcovers

 Effects of one over the other
(New approaches of research)
Prediction.
Individual differences
Level of Creativity depending on level of
intelligence
Cognitive profile depending on creativity level
(Ferrando et al 2012)
Creative process depending on intelligence level