Chat with us, powered by LiveChat Tedx Talks Myth • Watch the Tedx Talks at o Summarize | Office Paper

 Tedx Talks Myth • 

Watch the Tedx Talks at o 

Summarize the myth chosen for the assignment 

topic :-  Rorschach inkblot tests have no validity. They are not used in modern psychology, and were so bad they diagnosed schizophrenia in 1/6 of all normal people 

5- page Apa Citation


Writing Assignment #4: Internet Information


With what has been learned in Assignments 1, 2, and 3, a further look at information

found on the internet is the goal of Assignment 4. A review of a TedxTalks about “myths” in

psychology will be conducted. To start, choose one myth from the different myths listed by the

presenter. The assignment will consist of an introduction, discussion of the claims about the

myth chosen, a discussion about what information is found (if any) in the textbook, and a

discussion of the key points from the scholarly journal article found about it.

Section 1: Questions or Prompts

Tedx Talks Myth

• Watch the Tedx Talks at

o Summarize the myth chosen for the assignment.

King Textbook

o Describe what King (2016) presents about the topic of the myth.

o If it is not addressed directly by King (2016), identify the closest topic that the textbook

does address and describe what the textbook mentions.

Scholarly Journal Article

• Using the ECU Library’s Database for Psychology and Behavioral Science Collection

(EBSCO), find a scholarly journal article about the topic of the myth.

• Only a scholarly journal article with a research study will be accepted. No reviews of


Review of the Scholarly Journal Article.

o What is/are the research question(s) for this study? (Introduction)


o What are the 3 most cited topics or research outcomes by the author(s) to support

researching this topic? Why were each of these sources used? (Literature Review)

o What type of study did the author(s) conduct: Experimental, quasi-experimental,

correlational, or qualitative? (Methods)

o How many participants were included in the study if study was conducted? What were

characteristics of the participants? Why did they choose participants with these

characteristics? (Methods)

o What measures were used if any? How often and when in the study were those measures

used? Were interviews or observations conducted? Was some other method used?


o What were the results of the study? (Results/Discussion/Conclusion)

o What limitations did the author(s) list? (Results/Discussion/Conclusion)

Critique of the Scholarly Journal Article.

o Was the sample size large enough? Was the sample representative of the population to be

measured? Why or why not?

o If a research study was conducted, how did the measures address the research question?

Were the measures used to often enough or too often in the study?

o What about this study worked? What about this study did not work?

o What could they do differently? Why would this change(s) help the study?

o Did the results from the article support, refute, or support some or refute some of the

claims identified from the Tedx Talk myth?

Section 2: Questions or Prompts

Myth or No Myth


o After reviewing the Tedx Talk, the King textbook, and the scholarly journal article, did

the King (2016) textbook support or not support the myth?

o Did the scholarly journal article support or not support the myth?

Your Argument

• You may write in first person as this is your opinion which has been informed by your

review of the literature.

o Identify your main arguments you would make if trying to convince another person that

the myth chosen is either a myth or supported by the research found.

o Why would you make this argument?

Counter Argument

• You may write in first person as this is your opinion which has been informed by your

review of the literature.

o Considering your argument, identify what you think might be the most used counter

arguments to your argument and why?

Section 3: Instructions

In this section, you will develop a meme to communicate the most influential argument

of your three arguments. You will copy and paste that into this document in the Section 3 area.

You can use any meme template generating website. Here are two of them: or There are even

apps for Apple or Android devices. Please make sure you are using a device or computer with

antivirus software prior to engaging in this.


Assignment 4: Conclusion/Introduction

• For the conclusion, take the main point of each of your paragraphs in the body of the

paper and develop that into a conclusion.

• For the introduction, take the conclusion and rephrase and re-order it to develop an

introduction to the paper for the reader.

• Remember that a conclusion tells you what the main points were that were just read while

an introduction notifies the reader about the main points in the written work to be read.


King, L. A. (2016). Experience Psychology (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Companies.

Tedx Talks. (2014, December 4). The top 10 myths of psychology [Video]. YouTube.


Writing Assignment #4: Internet Information

Student ID 8675309

Psych1113 General Psychology

East Central University

June 15, 2021


Assignment 4: Internet Information


In the Tedx Talk, the myth of left brained thinkers who used the left-hemisphere of the

brain more were more logical compared to right-brain thinkers who used the right-hemisphere

and were more creative. The King textbook did offer support that it was a myth from the research

reported. The scholarly journal article did offer some support as well; however, some concerns

about the research study and lack of participants and lack of use students who were not right-

handed did emerge. However, the argument could be made it was a myth since the three sources

supported this. A counter argument was made that some research did indicate the left-hemisphere

was where more language processing occurred to include verbal logical reasoning.

Section 1: Discussing the Myth

Tedx Talks Myth

In the Tedx Talk (2014, December 4), the top 10 myths of psychology, the speaker, Ben

Ambridge, discussed several different psychology myths, including the myth of left brained and

right brained thinking. Ambridge defines left brained people as logical, so they would be good

with equations. He described right brained people as more creative, so they would be better at

music or art. He indicates this is a myth since nearly everything that people do, from logic to

creating music, involves nearly all parts of your brain working together. This includes even

merely having a normal conversation. He indicated the reason this myth is brought up often is

because of the fact that ambidextrous people tend to be more creative than one-handed people.

Since left-handed people are more often ambidextrous; therefore, the common myth developed

that the left side of your brain controls more rational skills while the right side of your brain

controls more creative skills.


King Textbook

King (2016) describes the difference in functioning of the brain’s two hemispheres as

each hemisphere seems to be the source of specific processing. For example, the left hemisphere

is associated with language processing while the right hemisphere is associated with processing

spatial information; however, language processing in left-handed people tends toward more

bilateral processing as it occurs in both hemispheres.

King (2016) mentioned that there is a small amount of scientific evidence to back the

myth; however, it is more likely instead of being right-brained or left-brained that people are

whole-brained. Many of our daily experiences use both hemispheres of the brain.

Scholarly Journal Article

Review of the Scholarly Journal Article

Kershner and Ledger (1985) examined the differences of intelligence and style of

thinking creatively between males and females. The study examined the question of differences

in gifted students to see if the students were left hemisphere, right hemisphere, and integrated in

thinking styles. They hypothesis was that sex, thinking style, and IQ would impact creativity.

The literature review of the study addresses thinking styles versus intelligent quotient

(IQ) as some studies indicate a relationship with thinking styles rather than IQ. However, later in

the literature review, the studies that supported the relationship between IQ and creativity were

mentioned as IQ may explain differences rather than thinking in the different hemispheres. The

relationship to sex differences related to culture and the impact on intelligence and creativity

were examined as this may explain the differences in creativity found between males and



The study was a correlational study. The participants included 60 right-handed 9- to 11-

year-olds with 30 children randomly selected from the gifted program and 30 children selected

from the regular school program. Children were used as it allowed for the distinction between

student with higher IQs compared to students with average IQs due to the gifted education

selection process without the need to administer individual IQ tests to the participants. The

students were administered once the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking, Verbal and

Figural, Form A and the Your Style of Learning and Thinking, Children’s Form B (Kershner &

Ledger, 1985).

The results indicated that gender, IQ, and thinking style, which related to left or right

hemisphere thinking, each affected various elements of children’s creativity. Girls, independent

of their IQ level and thinking style, scored higher than boys generally over the seven creativity

subscales. Children with above average intelligence, were more creative than the average

intelligence kids yet just in verbal creativity. A relationship was found between children’s

preference for the integrated style of thinking, rather than right or left styles, and creativity. Sex

differences were not found between thinking styles; however, children with higher IQs were

more likely to use an integrated thinking style compared to average IQs who showed a

preference for the left-hemisphere style (Kershner & Ledger, 1985).

To conclude, no limitations were reported for the study, however, a concern was found as

the children participating in this study were all right-handed (Kershner & Ledger, 1985).

Critique of the Scholarly Journal Article

The sample size of the Kershner and Ledger (1985) study was only 60 students with 30

students from the gifted program and 30 students from the regular school program and were

further divided as 15 girls and 15 boys in each group, which suggests that more participants are


needed as it leads to concerns that this does not accurately represent the population studied. The

measures appeared to address the research question related to creativity outcomes due to sex

differences, thinking styles, and IQ; however, nothing was mentioned as to the time of year or

time of day when they were administered, which could change the outcomes on these measures.

Another concern identified was that the participants were all right-handed, which could have

been a confounding variable.

The study had several strong points as it did utilize good measures and used random

selection of the participants. Also, the participants did not have to undergo an IQ test since they

used the gifted programs evaluation as the IQ basis. However, addressing the lack of

participants, specifically the use of only right-handed student, might improve the study. Also,

using the measures at times of the day when the children were more alert and during times of the

week when they were more engaged might improve the study.

As the results of the study indicated the likelihood that those who were more creative did

utilize an integrated thinking style or both hemispheres, it does support that use of one specific

hemisphere or left brain versus right brain for creativity is a myth.

Section 2: Myth or No Myth

Myth or No Myth

When comparing the information reported by Tedx Talk (2014, December 4),

King (2016), and Kershner & Ledger (1985), not much difference in the information was found.

It all supports that this is a myth.

Your Argument

My personal position is that this is a myth. Whether you think more with your right-brain

or left-brain does not seem to be as important as using all of your brain. Humans use both


hemispheres of their brain, and the use one side more does not affect your intelligence or

creativity. I would make this argument because the Tedx Talk, textbook, and scholarly journal

article support this argument.

Counter Argument

A counter argument might be that different hemispheres of the brain may process

different things, such as the left hemisphere has been found to process language compared to the

right hemisphere that process spatial information. People who do use verbal reasoning then

might use more of the left-hemisphere and be considered left-brain logic thinkers. This argument

would be used because there is some research that supports this.

Section 3: Meme Argument



The Tedx Talk identified the myth that left-brain thinkers were more logical while right-

brain thinkers were more creative. The King textbook indicated that the research did offer as

much support for this as it did that everyone uses both sides of their brain. The scholarly journal

article indicated that thinking styles, which corresponded to hemispheres of the brain, did affect

creativity; however, it supported that there was a relationship with creativity and integrated

thinking of both hemispheres. Some concerns were raised about research in the article as it did

not include enough participants or varied participants to represent the population; however, some

modifications of this would help. Each of the different sources did support that the myth of left-

brain versus right-brain thinkers was a myth. An argument could be made from the support found

in this myth; however, a counter argument could be made that some studies do support that the

left-hemisphere does seem to process language, which could include verbalized logical




Kershner, J. R., & Ledger, G. (1985). Effect of sex, intelligence, and style of thinking on

creativity: A comparison of gifted and average IQ children. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 48(4), 1033–1040. /10.1037/0022-3514.48.4.1033

King, L. A. (2016). Experience Psychology (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Companies.

Tedx Talks. (2014, December 4). The top 10 myths of psychology [Video]. YouTube.

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

Copyright 1985 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.

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-

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

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



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

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



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


(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-

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,

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.


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


Fluency Originality Flexibility Elaboration



















6.83 .




7.14 —
8.01 — —



















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


Right hemisphere Left hemisphere





















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


Right hemisphere Left hemisphere




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









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.


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-

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

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


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


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-


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

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

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-

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,

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 …

error: Content is protected !!