ANNE ANASTASI

CHARLES E. SCHAEFER

Note on the Concepts 01Creativity and Intelligence*

The rapid upsurge of research on creativity since the 1950'shas been accompanied by an emphasis on the distinctionbetween creativity and intelligence. Recognizing the almosttotal absence from traditional intelligence tests of tasks re­quiring creative or divergent-production thinking, severalinvestigators felt impelled to demonstrate that a high IQdoes not imply high creativity; in fact, a few seemed tosuggest that a high IQ might be a drawback to creativeachievement.

Such discussions have easily caused a widespread impres­sion that creativity and intelligence are distinct and in­dependent entities. However, various analyses of the rela­tionship between scores on specific tests designed tomeasure creativity and those on tests designed to measureintelligence have failed to support such a sharp differentia­tion (Cropley, 1966; Klausmeier & Wiersma, 1965; Piers,Daniels & Quackenbush, 1960; Richards, Cline & Need­ham, 1964; Ripple & May, 1962; Seitz, 1964; Thorndike,1966). In general, creativity-test scores correlate almost ashighly with intelligence-test scores as the individual testscores within either domain correlate with each other. Thesame conclusion emerges from studies reporting simple inter­correlations, those employing more refined factor-analytictechniques, and those comparing mean scores of subgroups.

·The data reported in this note were obtained in a project supportedby Subcontract No.2 of the Center for Urban Education's ContractNo. OEC-l-?,-062868-3060 with the United States Office of Education.

113 Volume 5 Number 2 Second Quarter 197/

Note on the Concepts 01Creativity and Intelligence

Some further data corroborating this conclusion wereobtained in an investigation of creativity among high schoolstudents in the New York metropolitan area. As part of abroader project, students in grades 10-12 were given theGuilford tests of Alternate Uses and Consequences. Thelatter test was scored for the number of remote associations.Grade-point averages and intelligence-test scores were avail­able for a total of 989 boys and girls in this sample.About half had taken the Pintner General Ability Tests;the rest had taken other widely used group intelligencetests. All scores were expressed as deviation IQ's with an5D of 16, except for 90 students who had Otis IQ's(5D = 12). Table 1 shows the intercorrelations among thetwo creativity-test scores, grades, and IQ for the entire

TABLE 1Intercorrelations of Creativity Tests, Grades, and IQ

Variable 2 3 4

1. Alternate Uses .3082. Consequences3. Grades4.IQ

Note.-All r's significant at p < .01.

.208

.154.274.103.555

group. It should be noted that the use of different intel­ligence tests to obtain IQ's would introduce random er­rors and hence tend to lower the correlations between IQ'sand other variables. Thus the conclusion that the scoreson the two creativity tests correlate almost as high withIQ as with each other is conservative. The correlations ofthe creativity scores with grades are of the same order ofmagnitude as those with IQ. A composite score on the twocreativity tests correlated .222 and .225 with grades andIQ, respectively. Separate analyses for boys and girlsyielded close similar patterns of relationships. The prin­cipal difference was that all the correlations were higheramong the girls-a sex difference that has been found byother investigators also (see Seashore, 1962).

The results of the present study are consistent with theconclusion that creativity, like intelligence, is a many­faceted concept. In view of the factor-analytic results ofGuilford (1967) and others regarding the variables looselyclassified under "creativity" and "intelligence," such a con­clusion should not be surprising. Each term covers manyabilities, identified with relatively independent factors. Most

114

The Journal of Creative Behavior

available creativity tests were designed to measure differentfactors identified by Guilford within the broadly inclusivecategory of divergent production. One should not, therefore,expect higher correlations among scores on such tests thanare found among scores on the different tests within thetraditional area of "intelligence," such as verbal comprehen­sion and numerical reasoning tests.

To be sure, an investigator may arbitrarily limit the term"creativity" to a narrowly defined set of variables, therebyidentifying creativity with a single factor and permitting thedevelopment of tests that show no overlap with intelligencetests (cE., e.g., Wallach & Kogan, 1965). This procedure isequivalent to defining intelligence as verbal comprehensionand measuring it with a multiple-choice vocabulary test.In both cases, it would seem preferable to use a morespecific and hence more informative term to designate thevariable under consideration.

Another condition fostering the belief that creativity andintelligence are independent attributes is the use of highlyhomogeneous samples. It is sometimes stated that, althoughintelligence and creativity may be substantially correlatedin the general population, the correlation is negligible amonghighly intelligent or highly creative persons. This effect is,of course, no different from that found with all abilities.Verbal and numerical abilities, for example, are virtuallyuncorrelated among college students, but are significantlycorrelationed in a random sample of the general population.

In summary, we propose that the term "creativity," likethe term "intelligence," be recognized as referring to aloosely defined, broad, and many-faceted concept. Both termswill undoubtedly survive as independent concepts becausethey provide convenient shortcuts in designating complexbehavior domains of considerable practical importance. Butneither corresponds to a precisely defined or distinct entity.Each comprises a multiplicity of indentifiable traits, organ­ized in a pattern of relationships that cuts across the twodomains.

REFERENCES CROPLEY, A. J. Creativity and intelligence. Brit. 1. of Educ. Psychol.,1966,36,259-266.

GUILFORD, J. P. The nature of human intelligence. New York: Me­Graw-Hill, 1967.

KLAUSMEIER, H. ]. & WIERSMA, W. The effects of IQ level andsex on divergent thinking of seventh grade pupils of low, average,and high IQ.1. of Educ. Res., 1965, 58, 300-302.

115

Note on the Concepts of Creativity and Intelligence

PIERS. E. V., DANIELS, J. M. & QUACKENBUSH, J. F. The identifica­tion of creativity in adolescents. J. of Educ. Psychol., 1960, 51,346-351.

RICHARDS, J. M., CLINE, V. B. &; NEEDHAM, W. E. Creativity testsand teacher and self judgments of originality. I, of Exp. Educ., 1964,32, 281-285.

RIPPLE, R. E. & MAY, F. Caution in comparing creativity and IQ.Psychol. Rep., 1962, to, 229-230.

SEASHORE, H. G. Women are more predictable than men. 1. of Coun­seling Psychol., 1962, 9, 261-270.

SEITZ, T. L. The relationship between creativity and intelligence, per­sonality, and value patterns in adolescence. Vissert. Abstr., 1964, 25,3679-3680.

THORNDIKE, R. L. Some methodological issues in the study of creativ­ity. In A. Anastasi (Ed.), Testing problems in perspectioe. Washing­ton, D. c.: Amer. Coun. Educ., 1966. p. 436-448.

WALLACH, M. & KOGAN, N. Modes of thinking in young children.New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1965.

Anne Anastasi, Chairman, Department of Psychology.Address: Fordham University, Creativity Center, Bronx,New York 10458.

Charles E. Schaefer, Executive Director, Creativity Center.Address: Fordham University, Bronx, New York 14058.

118