Multidimensional nature of intelligence and creativity indicators: methodical and theoretical consequences

Occupation: Leading research officer of laboratory of psychology of abilities and mental resources named after V.N. Druzhinin
Affiliation: Federal State-financed Establishment of Science, Institute of Psychology RAS
Address: Moscow, Yaroslavskaya St., 13

Journal name

Psikhologicheskii zhurnal

Edition

Volume 41 Issue 3

Pages

18-31

Abstract

The article substantiates the multidimensional (nonlinear) nature of traditional indicators of intelligence and creativity. Based on the analysis of the heterogeneity of the sample, the psychological ambiguity of these indicators is stated. We consider its empirical manifestations in the form of “the splitting effect” of indicators of psychometric intelligence and psychometric creativity: high indicators of intelligence and creativity can be associated with both high and low productivity of mental activity, similarly low (average) indicators – both low and high. Accordingly, both high and low indicators of intelligence and creativity are “split” into two subpoles (areas), depending on the underlying productive or unproductive components. The criterion of “splitting” high and low values of IQ and creativity is a measure of the formation of conceptual, metacognitive and intentional abilities. Methodological and theoretical consequences of the multidimensional (nonlinear) nature of intelligence and creativity are discussed.

Keywords

Multidimensional (nonlinear) mental properties, psychometric intelligence, psychometric creativity, the splitting effect, conceptual abilities, metacognitive abilities, intentional abilities

Acknowledgment

The study was conducted within the framework of state task №. 0159-2019-0008 “Resource functions of abilities of different levels: effects of differentiation and integration in the structure of personality”

Received

21.04.2020

Publication date

08.05.2020

Number of characters

36090

Cite

GOST	Kholodnaya M. Multidimensional nature of intelligence and creativity indicators: methodical and theoretical consequences // Psikhologicheskii zhurnal – 2020. – V. 41. – Issue 3 C. 18-31 [Electronic resource]. URL: https://psy.jes.su/S020595920009342-2-1 (circulation date: 19.04.2024). DOI: 10.31857/S020595920009342-2
MLA	Kholodnaya, M. "Multidimensional nature of intelligence and creativity indicators: methodical and theoretical consequences." Psikhologicheskii zhurnal 41.3 (2020):18-31. DOI: 10.31857/S020595920009342-2
APA	Kholodnaya M. (2020). Multidimensional nature of intelligence and creativity indicators: methodical and theoretical consequences. Psikhologicheskii zhurnal 41(3), pp.18-31 DOI: 10.31857/S020595920009342-2

100 rub.

When subscribing to an article or issue, the user can download PDF, evaluate the publication or contact the author. Need to register.

Number of purchasers: 3, views: 1569

Readers community rating: votes 0

1. Ayzenk G.Yu. Intellekt: novyy vzglyad. Voprosy psihologii. 1995. № 1. P. 111–131. (in Russian)

2. Bogoyavlenskaya D.B. Psihologiya tvorcheskih sposobnostey: Monografiya. Samara: ID “Fedorov”, 2009. (in Russian)

3. Bogoyavlenskaya D.B., Bogoyavlenskaya M.E. Odarennost': priroda i diagnostika. Moscow: ANO “CNPRO”, 2013. (in Russian)

4. Volkova E.V. Intellekt, kreativnost' i produktivnost' osvoeniya professional'noy deyatel'nosti. Psikhologicheskii zhurnal. 2011. V. 32. № 4. P. 83–94. (in Russian)

5. Druzhinin V.N. Eksperimental'naya psihologiya. Uchebnoe posobie. Moscow: INFRA-M, 1997. (in Russian)

6. Druzhinin V.N. Psihologiya obshchih sposobnostey. St. Petersburg: Piter, 1999. (in Russian)

7. Egorova M.S. Sopostavlenie divergentnyh i konvergentnyh osobennostey kognitivnoy sfery detey (vozrastnoy i geneticheskiy analiz). Voprosy psihologii, 2000. № 1. P. 36–46. (in Russian)

8. Dorfman L.Ya. Kreativnoe myshlenie i vnimanie. Tvorchestvo: Ot biologicheskih istokov k social'nym i kul'turnym fenomenam. Ed. D.V. Ushakov. Moscow: Izd-vo “Institut psihologii RAN”, 2011. P. 205–246. (in Russian)

9. Petuhov B.M. Informacionnaya sovmestimost' operatora s rezhimami raboty. Dis. … kand. psihol. nauk. M., 1985. (in Russian)

10. Prakticheskiy intellect. Ed. R. Sternberg. St. Petersburg: Piter, 2002. (in Russian)

11. Struktura intellekta vzroslyh. Ed. E.I. Stepanova. L: NII Obshchego obrazovaniya vzroslyh APN RSFSR, 1979. (in Russian)

12. Sugonyaev, K.V., Radchenko Yu.I. “Zakon umen'sheniya otdachi” Spirmena: issledovanie na masshtabnyh rossiyskih vyborkah. Vestnik YuUrGU. Seriya “Psihologiya”. 2018. V. 11, № 1. P. 5–21. (in Russian)

13. Ushakov D.V. Intellekt: Strukturno-dinamicheskaya teoriya. Moscow: Izd-vo “Institut psihologii RAN”, 2003. (in Russian)

14. Kholodnaya M.A. Kognitivnye stili: O prirode individual'nogo uma. 2-e izd., dop. i pererab. St. Petersburg: Piter, 2004. (in Russian)

15. Kholodnaya M.A. Psihologiya ponyatiynogo myshleniya: ot konceptual'nyh struktur k ponyatiynym sposobnostyam. Moscow: Izd-vo “Institut psihologii RAN”, 2012. (in Russian)

16. Kholodnaya M.A. Psihologiya intellekta: Paradoksy issledovaniya. 3-e izd., dop. i pererab. Moscow: Yurayt, 2019 (Seriya: Avtorskiy uchebnik). (in Russian)

17. Shcheblanova E.I. Neuspeshnye odarennye shkol'niki. Moscow: IG-SOCIN, 2008. (in Russian)

18. An D., Song Y., Carr M. A comparison of two models of creativity: Divergent thinking and creative expert performance. Personality and Individual Differences. 2016. V. 90. P. 78–84.

19. Anstey K.J., Hofer S.M., Luszez M.A. Cross-sectional and longitudinal patterns of dedifferentiation in late-life cognitive and sensory function: The effect of age, ability, attrition and occasion of measurement. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General. 2003. V. 132 (3). P. 470–487.

20. Baltes P.B., Cornelius S.W., Spiro A., Nesselroade J.R., Willis S.L. Integration versus differentiation of fluid/cristallized intelligence in old age. Development Psychology. 1980. V. 16 (6). P. 625–635.

21. Barron, F. X. Creative Person, Creative Process. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1969.

22. Batey М., Furnham А., Safiullina Х. Intelligence, general knowledge and personality as predictors of creativity. Learning and Individual Differences. 2010. V. 20. P. 532–535.

23. Benedek, M., Könen, T., Neubauer, A.C. Associative abilities underlying creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts. 2012. V. 6. P. 273–281.

24. Blanch A., García H., Llaveria A., Aluja A. The Spearman's law of diminishing returns in chess. Personality and Individual Differences. 2017. V. 104. P. 434–441.

25. Blum D., Holling H. Spearman's law of diminishing returns: A meta-analysis. Intelligence. 2017. V. 65. P. 60–66.

26. Brown G., Langer E. Mindfulness and intelligence: A comparison. Educational Psychologist. 1990. V. 25 (3–4). P. 305–335.

27. Cho S.H., Nijenhuis J.T., Vianen A.E., Kim H., Lee K.H. The Relationship Between Diverse Components of Intelligence and Creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior. 2010. V. 44(2). P. 125–137.

28. de Frias C.M., Lövdén M., Lindenberger U., Nilsson L.-G. Revisiting the dedifferentiation hypothesis with longitudinal multi-cohort data. Intelligence. 2007. V. 35. P. 381–392.

29. Detterman D. K., Daniel, M. H. Correlations of mental tests with each other and with cognitive variables are highest for low IQ groups. Intelligence. 1989. V. 13. P. 349–359.

30. Detterman D.K. Giftedness and intelligence: One and the same? G.R. Bock, K. Ackrill (Eds.). The origins and development of high ability. CIBA Foundation Symposium. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, 1993. P. 22−43.

31. Evans M.G. On the asymmetry of g. Psychological Reports. 1999. V. 85. P. 1059–1069.

32. Facon B. Does age moderate the effect of IQ on the differentiation of cognitive abilities during childhood? Intelligence. 2006. V. 34. P. 375−386.

33. Facon В. How does the strength of the relationships between cognitive abilities evolve over the life span for low-IQ vs high-IQ adults? Intelligence. 2008. V. 36. P. 339–349.

34. Fiorello C.A., Haleb J.B., McGratha M., Ryanc K., Quinn S. IQ interpretation for children with flat and variable test profiles. Learning and Individual Differences. 2002. V.13. P. 115–125.

35. Fisher J.E., Heller W., Miller G.A. Neuropsychological differentiation of adaptive creativity and schizotypal cognition. Personality and Individual Differences. 2013. V. 54. P. 70–75.

36. Grégoire J.,Coalson D.L, Zhu J. Analysis of WAIS-IV index score scatter using significant deviation from the mean index score. Assessment. 2011. V. 18(2). P. 168–177.

37. Groborz М., Necka Е. Creativity and cognitive control: Explorations of generation and evaluation skills. Creativity Research Journal. 2003. V. 15(2–3). P. 183–197.

38. Hale J. B., Fiorello, C. A. Beyond the academic rhetoric of ‘g’: Intelligence testing guidelines for practitioners. The School Psychologist. 2001. V. 55. P. 113–135.

39. Herskovits M., Gyarmathy É. Types of high ability: Highly able children with an unbalanced intelligence structure. European Journal for high ability. 1995. V. 6. P. 38–48.

40. Hertzog Ch., Bleckley M.K. Age differences in the structure of intelligence: Influences of information processing speed. Intelligence. 2001. V. 29. P. 191–217.

41. Jensen A. R. Regularities in Spearman's law of diminishing returns. Intelligence. 2003. V. 31. P. 95−105.

42. Kim K.H. Can only intelligent people be creative? The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education. V. XVI. № 2/3. 2005. P. 57–66.

43. Legree P.I., Pifer M.E., Grafton F.C. Correlation between cognitive abilities are lower for higher ability group. Intelligence. 1996. V. 23. P. 45–57.

44. Leikin R., Leikin M., Paz-Baruch N., Waisman I., Lev M. On the four types of characteristics of super mathematically gifted students. High Ability Studies, 2017. V. 28(1). P. 107–125.

45. Masunaga H., Horn J. Characterizing mature human intelligence Expertise development. Learning and Individual Differences. 2000. V.12. P 5–33.

46. McGill R.J. Spearman’s law of diminishing returns (SLODR): Examining effects at the level of prediction. Journal of Psychology and Behavioral Science. 2015. V. 3(1). P. 24–36.

47. Muiller H., Dash U.N., Matheson D.W., Short R.H. WISC-R subtest pattering of below average, average and above average IQ children: A meta analysis. Alberta J. of Educational Research. 1984. V. 30. P. 68–85.

48. Schiff М. M., Kaufman, A.S., Kaufman, N.L. Scatter analysis of WISC-R profiles for learning disabled children with superior intelligence. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 1981. V. 14 (7). P. 400–404.

49. Schinka J. A., Vanderploeg R. D., & Curtiss G. WISC-III subtest scatter as a function of highest subtest scaled score. Psychological Assessment. 1997. V. 9. P. 83–88.

50. Shaywitz S.E., Holahan J.M., Freudenheim D.A. et al. Heterogeneity within the gifted: Higher IQ boys exhibit behaviors resembling boys with learning disabilities. Gifted Child Quarterly. 2001. V. 45 (1). P. 16–23.

51. Silvia P.J. Creativity and intelligence revisited: A latent variable analysis of Wallach and Kogan. Creativity Research Journal. 2008. V. 20(1). P. 34–39.

52. Silvia P.J., Beaty R.E., Nusbaum E.C. Verbal fluency and creativity: General and specific contributions of broad retrieval ability (Gr) factors to divergent thinking. Intelligence. 2013. V. 41. P. 328–340.

53. Simonton K.D. Genius and giftedness: Same ore different. International handbook of giftedness and talent. Ed. by K. Heller et al. Amsterdam: Elsevier science, 2000. P. 111–121.

54. Steffens K., Perleth Ch. The structure of cognitive abilities in highly and moderately gifted young people. European Journal of High Ability. 1991. V. 1(1). P. 76–84.

55. Tideman E., Gustafsson, J. E. Age-related differentiation of cognitive abilities in ages 3–7. Personality and Individual Differences. 2004. V. 36. P. 1965−1974.

56. Thomas H., Dahlin M.P. Individual development and latent groups: Analytical tools for interpreting heterogeneity.Developmental Review. 2005. V. 25 (2). P. 133–154.

57. Wallach M. A., Kogan N. Modes of thinking in young children: A study of the creativity–intelligence distinction. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1965.

58. Wilkinson S.C. WISC-R profiles of children with superior intellectual ability. Gifted Child Quarterly. 1993. V. 37(2). P. 84–91.