MARY MEEKER

Measuring Creativity from the

Child's Point of View

There are some characteristics of people that are due precisely

to age and age alone. For instance, the spontaneous loss of
weight, with no change in diet, is a medical indicator of the
beginning of old age. In contrast to this, middle age is marked
by a tendency to put on weight. The longitudinal study of weight
gain and middle age at the Menninger Clinic indicates that there
is no pattern to account for it, and unfortunately, no dietary
remedy.
Children, too, have certain characteristics simply because
they are children. What we must be absolutely sure of as edu-
cators who make critical judgments about children is that we
do not attribute a characteristic that is simply a symptom of
childhood to a cause which we think we are responsible for or
should be accountable for.
Therefore, when we say "children are creative," we need to
define creativity and to assess our definition in terms of our
degree of influence upon it. Are the tendencies we term "crea-
tive" in children the result of parental influence or our instruction
or are the tendencies simply natural to the state of childhood?
ESTABLISHING This problem of defining creativity is one with which we must
A DEFINITION grapple. One dictionary defines creative as "having the ability
OF CREATIVITY
to create." Another dictionary does not even have the word
creativity in it-and yet another defines it as "the power of being
creative."
The Freudian approach to creativeness has been to define
the conditions which lead to it. From this viewpoint, it is neu-
roticism which results in the creative search. If we as educators
were to accept the Freudian approach we would be hard-put
in education to come up with an assessment based on creative

52 Volume 12 Number 1 First Quarter

 The Journal of Creative Behavior

ability as an extension of neurosis. Furthermore, the whole

attitude of positive acceptance of creativeness would soon be
lost if we went around trying to identify creative children by
assessing their neurotic tendencies.
Another approach to defining creativity is to look at adult
products which society accepts as creative, and then do a post-
dictive look at the livesof those who created them. Such glimpses
are fascinating, and lend insight into the global personality
characteristics of known creative adults. But does that mean
that any child who evidences these same characteristics will
become a creative adult? There are no studies to support such
a speculation.' Although this approach has been used in career
and vocational counselling through the Strong Inventory, cur-
rent researchers in career counselling feel the Strong has not
been accurate enough. We should profit from this finding as
educators and look elsewhere for a definition or approach to
identifying creativity.
John Gowan (1964) has long searched for answers to this
problem of definition and his search has led him to believe
currently that the use of verbal analogies and the proficiency
of verbal analogical thinking leads to creative manipulation of
words and ideas. Verbal creativity 'can be developed when we
articulate and sequence verbal tasks within the Guilford Struc-
ture-oj-Iniellect model (1959). The sequence is as follows: CMR
(Cognition of Semantic Relations), CMS (Cognition of Semantic
Systems), CMT (Cognition of Semantic Transformations),
CMI (Cognition of Semantic Implications), repeat the sequence
for the Evaluation dimension, and finally for the Divergent
dimension.
There are, however, products not necessarily verbal which
indicate creative ability using manipulative and concrete media.
Such ability demands motor skills, coordination, and visual
and auditory acuity, and is based on human functions which
are psycho-motor, and perceptual-motor. Within the Structure
of Intellect, the cognitive components are included in the figural
dimension. Often this combination of skills (motor plus figural
intelligence) is shown as talent.
Joe Khatena (1978) and others who work with visual imagery,
as well as the psychologists who work with meditation, bio-
feedback, and hypoanalysis, point to the internal and external
environments which form conditions for inspiration, originality,
insight, and intuition development. Some even suggest that
'The California State Department of Education should plan to do a follow-up
study of early identified creatives (high divergent producers) when they have
matured and are in careers.

53
 Measuring Creativity from the Child's Point of View

creativity is a right-brain function, and that the above processes

allow the left brain to give up control so that the right brain
can come into dominance either through exercise or actual
development.
Such speculations need much more thought and investigation.
Suffice it to say that conditions achieved through biofeedback
and meditation are certainly pleasant, and may well be worth-
while simply for their own sake. Certainly many of us set our
"inspirations" when we are quiet or in a non-stimulation
situation.
My own searching efforts to understand the many approaches
and to make available' to teachers and to children a program
of sequential steps which will enhance development of creative
expressions, whether visual, auditory, fugural, symbolic, or
verbal, led me to accept as an operational definition of creativity
the Guilford SI model to meet these needs. However, there are
a few considerations to be made in his acceptance.
The first thesis I propose is that there are developmental pro-
gressions in the march. to creativity from infancy through
childhood and adolescence to adulthood. Second, I want to
share with you a factor which affects the developmental pro-
gression: that is, the culture in which the child is reared. For
each culture has its own values and expectations which are
transmitted informally to the children of that culture. A third
aspect I want to present to you is that within these first two
factors are subtle inhibitors and facilitators of creative growth:
there are personality characteristics of the parents, which over-
lay the values of the culture. Let's visually imagine a circle: this
inner circle is the child, within a larger circle-the culture and
within an even larger and more influential circle is that of the
parent's personalities. One of the early contributions to under-
standing this last aspect is Getzels and Jackson's early book,
Creativity and Intelligence (1962). The treatment given to their
sample is one all teachers should be familiar with. It is unfor-
tunate that they did not report on the students equally high
in convergent and divergent thinking.
THE Infants vary among themselves and among families. Some are
DEVELOPING inordinately curious, insatiable, want stimulation, do not like
CHILD
to sleep as much as mothers would like, etc. They don't mind
if their routines are infringed upon. They are flexible and harder
to handle. Often they are more egocentric than their brothers
or sisters, showing persistent motivation and drive to complete
tasks.
In the young child, spontaneity and freedom to satiate curi-
osity are forerunners of creative effort. Take a look at a five- or

54
 The Journal of Creative Behavior

six-year-old who exhibits spontaneity, a personality character-

istic, with fluency, a motor skill. Have you ever watched a puppet
show given by 5·6·7·year-old children? They spend a great deal
of time setting up a stage, making the puppets, planning the
curtain, making the tickets for the performance, distributing
or "selling" them, and finally deciding where the "audience"
will sit. At last the show is ready to begin. The audience isseated,
and at the big moment, the curtain goes up!
It soon becomes evident that not one thought has been given
to the plot, for now the puppeteer's interest is completely taken
up with the manipulation of the puppets. By this time, of course,
the audience is desperately awaiting intermission or escape.
Another aspiring six-year-old puppeteer, however, may be
much more concerned with the story to be told. It does not
matter whether the plot is original or a replay of a well-known
story. In any event, it is produced with details religiously
unchanged.
Which child do you think is the more creative one? Is one a
divergent thinker with motor-figural creativity while the other
is a convergent, verbally producing child? Although educators
and psychologists may ask such questions, both kinds of be-
haviors are indicative of future creativity, and more importantly,
both are forerunners of different kinds of adult creative behavior.
It is important that cultural influences, or as in the case pre-
sented here, family personalities, do not throw dampers on the
end product with responses such as laughter and criticism, dis-
ruption, refusal to observe, or strict adherence to set family
schedules.
In any case, some children will continue to be creative in the
face of such frustration. This is dependent partly on their own
individual make-up. Some may comply with the family intrusions
and demands; others may be defeated by the ridicule and relin.-
quish interest. The paradox is that the child's sensitivity to
reactions is vital if creative endeavors are to persist. It is possible
that the next time the child has an urge to "create," the memory
of the last experience may be so heavily loaded with negativity
that he or she will curtail such efforts at the first obstacle. A
worse effect is that the child may never develop a "set" to
complete a task. Some may react by having a tantrum or be-
coming disobedient. Later these children may pursue egocentric
interests to the point of becoming anti-social. Over a period
of time they may develop the type of non-awareness behaviors
which characterize the "insensitive" adult who is described
as "too far out."
These illustrations are taken from actual case studies followed

55
 Measuring Creativity from the Child's Point of View

over 15 years. They point out the need to assess creativity in

children differently from the way it is assessed in adults. In the
child's immediate environment, the attitudes and emotions of
adults and peers attendant to creative efforts are crucial. It is
important to assess childhood creativity at each stage of growth
when the developmental acquisition of fine motor skills, writing
and verbal communication skills, and facility with numerical
concepts is taking place.
MEASURING What is creativity in children? Can we measure it? Can we
CREATIVJTY measure creative potential? Questions such as these center
around the issue of identification. Getzels and Jackson's (1963)
students had IQ's over 130. (In California an IQ score of 132
allows legal admittance to a gifted child program.) Their stu-
dents were found to differ a great deal among themselves.
Those who scored high on the Guilford tests of creativity and
low on achievement tests had quite different personality charac-
teristics from those who did not score so high on creativity
but did score high on achievement. Another major investigation
conducted by Wilson (1966) defined verbal creativity oper-
ationally as having an especially good sense of humor. When
creativity was so defined, a strong relationship was found
between the creative, humorous, gifted academically, and high
achieving. In another study (Meeker, 1970), in which 67 gifted
students were differentiated from each other by SOl-Binet
Responses and on a rating scale of creative characteristics, it
was found that about 35 per cent of the students were judged
creative (High Divergent), and about one-third as gifted achievers
(High Convergent), and one-third were high Evaluation (thus
were school leaders). These same students were reassessed
four years later in high school by different teachers, and those
identified as creative still maintained higher creativity ratings
on the same scale. In addition, we found that the divergent
students studied only the subjects they liked, and would not
work for teachers they considered unjust or "dumb."2
Ongoing studies here at the SOl Institute with data on over
3,000 children from grades 2-10 show a developmental increase
in divergent thinking with a slowing after second grade and an
increase after sixth grade.
Unlike academic potential, which may be globally validated
by academic accomplishment, creative ability is best judged
by creative products, or more preciseiy, products judged as
creative by contemporary society. Judging a piece of work as
creative does not have the same precision as the traditional
2Statistics available on request.

56
 The Journal of Creative Behavior

standards of academic accomplishment. Since "creativity"

tends to be subjective and problematic, this has ma'de the
problem of validation very difficult, though not insurmountable.
In our society the child is required to go to school. He is not
required to be creative. In fact, the freedom of expression
usually associated with creativity is often antithetical to the
conformity necessary for students to learn subject matter.
Society decrees that specific subject matter be taught so that
the students become accomplished in academic skiIls considered
of value in adult roles.
In the puritanical tradition, to be accomplished in creative
work would be training for "play" instead of work. This value
must be re-examined in light of current societal trends.
It is reasoned, and rightly' 50, that since children are captive
subjects in the schools, their academic potential should be re-
flected in commensurate achievement. Regardless of levels of
intelligence, it is the student's job to learn what he is taught
in school. The school's primary goal is to mesh his academic
potential with his achievement 50 that he will not be an under-
achiever or a failure. Underachievers, gifted or average, pose
real problems for their schools. A "creative underachiever,"
on the other hand, would pose no problem at all. Why? Neither
the school's performance of its tasks nor the child's par-
formance of his role in the school is threatened.
To look at it another way, let us suppose that the most
desirable instruments for the identification of creativity were
already available. Suppose that we now had in hand a practical
test of creativity-group administered, highly reliable-and
the resultant CQ (creativity quotient) had a general consensus
of validity. If we then take the liberty of looking beyond the
issue of identification, we ~il find that we may have missed the
forest for the trees.
In all probability we would not get a CQ test of comparable
validity to the IQ test. It is important to keep in mind that con-
ceptually the relationship between IQ tests and schools is an
accident. There were schools long before there were IQ tests
and there were gifted students long before there' were IQ tests.
Schools have, by happenstance, provided the validation for
the IQ tests. One might question where IQ tests would be today
if there were no schools. If there were a CQ test, however,
which institutions could provide validation for it? In all likeli-
hood, creativity tests would have to bring their own validation
with them if they were to be accepted.
Sociological inconvenience aside, however, suppose we had
a validated CQ test. Would we want to nurture creativity for-

57
 Measuring Creativity-from the Child's Point of View

mally, as we do the intellectual skillswhich comprise IQ? Bringing

creativity into the classroom as a formal, scheduled subject
might have some troublesome, ifnot undesirable, consequences.
As an example, consider the relationship between learning and
conformity. If learning and conformity are traditional com-
panions, then creativity and non-conformity could become
disrupting in the classrooms.
Let us look at a few of the things we know about creativity.
We know that certain physical, personality and/or tempera-
mental characteristics have repeatedly been found to charac-
terize creative adults. They are:
1. unusual sensitivity and perceptiveness to people and
to problems;
2. fluency in both verbal and motor functions;
3. flexibility in social situations, with numerical and
verbal concepts, and with concrete media;
4. originality of ideas, verbal expressions, motor
expressions, and sense of humor;
5. ability to abstract, organize, and synthesize in
processing information;
6. high energy level;
7. perseverence in tasks of interest;
8. impatience with routine or mundane tasks;
9 secure in risk-taking; and
10. vivid spontaneous imaginations (parenthetically,
this takes the form of "fibbing" in young children
and, as one creative SOl study writer told me-"I
am still fibbing, that is how I make my stories
interesting!").
SCHOOL Do the same characteristics identified in children predict crea-
INFLUENCE tive adulthood, and if so, can we teach them?
ON ADULT Let us, for instance, take the characteristic of flexibility.
CREATIVITY
Here is an example in which flexibility with verbal material
and numerical information in young children demonstrates
early creative potential.
A third-grade class was using math workbooks with the
graphic pie method for teaching fractions. In the initial dis-
cussion, a girl raised her hand and asked how the pie would
look if tlie outside were made into a straight line. She was
allowed to go to the board to demonstrate her thinking. Another
verbally fluent, flexible, and imaginative youngster commented,
"That looks like a shark's teeth when his mouth is open," and
soon there was pandemonium, with the teacher trying to re-
gain control over her math class. It did not matter (in fact, the

58
 The Journal of Creative Behavior

teacher did not know) that the one child had spontaneously
demonstrated a natural insight into Euclidian geometry, showing
symbolic creativity, while the other child demonstrated verbal
fluency and flexibility of thought, or semantic creativity. Both
can be nurtured and disciplined. All the teacher knew was that
she had lost control of her class by allowing a digression, and
that it took seven of her allotted twenty math minutes to calm
down the laughter. She became determined to control spon-
taneous outbursts, in the event that her principal might find
her class too rowdy.
This is an example of the paradigm referred to earlier where
the child (circle) affected by school or social factors (circle)
overall affected by parental factors (circle).
Traditionally the child's job in learning academic subject
matter occurs in a group -situation. This learning has always
functioned within a conformative atmosphere. Since conformity
and education are complementary companions, creativity cre-
ates an educational triangle.
This does not imply that the schools are deliberately "ruining"
creativity in children. However, it may be that the incident de-
scribed above is at the basis of the schools' suppression of
creativity. The system pays the student for his job by giving
him grades. This system of using grades as rewards for achieve:
ment or punishment for failure, if not anti-creative, is not pro-
creative.
It is vital that creativity in children be looked at as a different
phenomenon from creativity in adults, both from a cultural and
a developmental point of view. It does not mean that subject
matter cannot be taught in an individually creative manner.
Chic Streetman and Jessica Maxwell are consultants for the
SOl Institute who go out to schools to teach teachers how to
teach divergent thinking. They are creative themselves and
are very successful in helping teachers learn.

CHILDHOOD These and many other aspects of the concept of creativity

V5. ADULT need exploration and definition. Staying within the primary
CREATIVITY dichotomy, however, it is necessary to postulate the broad
parameters which differentiate childhood creativity from adult
creativity. How do they differ from each other?
As children operate on their environment, they often seem
to have unique approaches to problems and show original
ways of perceiving and expressing events. This is partly be-
cause the child is not experience- or tradition-bound in his
responses, whereas an adult's knowledge of what is and what
exists permits him to produce a product which is judged from

59
 Measuring Creativity from the Child's Point of View

the known. The product, if it is contributively different from

what is already known, can be termed creative. It is question-
able whether the child knows the difference between being
spontaneous and being creative when spontaneity is a natural
state of being. If children do not know the difference and see
that spontaneity is not being rewarded-in fact school and family
tend to suppress it in the interest of convenience-many learn
to suppress both their spontaneity and curiosity. In short, the
behavior is extinguished due to a lack of reward,
We should, then, look upon spontaneity bf response as a
forerunner of one type of creativity and, if we value it, we
should develop parenting techniques which enhance and re-
ward early creative efforts.
Investigators have successfully shown which characteristics
are repeatedly exhibited by achieving creative adults. Among
these is originality in sense of humor and in viewpoint, such as
is shown by writers, comedians, scientists, designers, and archi-
tects, to name a few. Spontaneity may be a precursor to
originality. When, however, these same characteristics are
already highly developed, or allowed to develop in children and
occur spontaneously in the classroom, the result often causes
problems or even chaos. Why? Because the child, unlike most
adults, is inexperienced in disciplining his actions, and of course,
disciplining constructive responses is a major goal educators
have for children.
The following example of spontaneously creative behavior
occurred in a fifth-grade boy who had an uncanny sense of
timing in humor and response. His remarks could disrupt the
classroom at will, and he posed a serious problem for the teacher,
who either had to expel him from the classroom, or deal with
his behavior in the situation. How rare the teacher (equally
fluent) who could say, "Terrific, Bruce. You show an amazing
talent for being witty. Have you ever thought about how you
can use this talent when you grow up? Do you know all the
professions you could go into with this kind of ability? You
could be a comedian, an eloquent lawyer, or even a comedy
writer for TV. What else could he go into with his talent, class?"
Such a comment will do more than allow her to do her required
job. It will not suppress his talent, and at the same time, it will
help the student learn to use his talent constructively within
the confines of expected behavior. In this sense creativity can
be nourished by the school, society, teacher effects circle.
Maintaining balance between the child's learning to conform
to group behavior and his learning to handle creative talent
constructively is a delicate matter. It is certain, however, that

60
 The Journal of Creative Behavior

no teacher can nurture creative potential if she does not know

what the characteristics are and how they operate within the
child. It is only natural to try to construct formal rules which
allow teachers to be creative occasionally. The paradox is that
some aspects of creativity require getting outside all rules. Yet
the child must learn what the rules are, for if he does not, his
lack of acceptance by teachers and peers may force him to
alienate himself. There is then the possibility that constructive
use of his talent will not develop.
It is easier to develop guidelines for promoting creativity in
the very young child than it is in the older. In the younger age
bracket, there are certain "do's," but for older children, the
matter is largely in the hands of the schools, and becomes a
series of "don't's."
If we want to encourage creativity from the beginning in very
young children, nursery school teachers and parents must
make material available to the child, for it is the interactions
between the child and his free use of materials, as well as those
between him and his teacher or parents, which will encourage
him to be spontaneous and flexible and help him learn to follow
up on his curiosity. The following are suggestions for enhancing
creativity:
1. Avoid setting limits.
2. Allow the child to be alone with materials. He needs
time to finish work, and satiate his curiosity ..
3. Provide opportunities for an uninterrupted one-to-
one relationship with the teacher or parent.
4. Understand his frustrations and provide help when
needed. This will help him to feel that his actions are
important, and establish a desire to work.
5. Make models available to the child to use as a
starting point for his own interests.
6. Allow him to use the materials as he sees fit. (The
line should be drawn at destruction of school or
group belongings.)
7. Provide instant help in social problems. Make both
sides of disagreements clear and allow children to
suggest, evaluate, and carry out solutions.
8. Spend a great deal of time listening to the child
rather than having him listen to you.
THE The measurement of divergent production on the SOI-L.A.
SOl-L.A. Test- covers fluency, set changes, transformations, and origi-
TEST nality of responses with figural, symbolic, and semantic contents.
3S01lnstitute, 214 Main Street, E1 Segundo, California 90245.

61
 Measuring Creativity from the Child's Point of View

Our findings in large samples of the gifted, specially educated,

learning disabled, Blacks, Navajo, and Mexican-Americans
have allowed us to identify cultural and linguistic differences.
The semantic divergent tests show more bias than the figural
tests for Navajo, Black, and Mexican-American students, grades
3-7. The figural tests are less likely to discriminate against
minorities on cultural and ethnic differences than does the
semantic divergent test. Interestingly, Black gifted children
tend to score three years above grade on DSR while Anglo-
gifted do so on DMU.
SUMMARY The global human characteristic we refer to as creativity can
be operationally defined. Educators concerned with treating
and developing the potentially creative child must consider:
1. the temperament and personality of the child as
demonstrated from early infancy,
2. the values and desires of the parents,
3. the training of parents to encourage the various
facets of creativity,
4. the impact of teacher and school values on creative
productions (this means adding divergent skills to
teacher training programs),
5. the need for using an operationally defined standard-
ized test such as the SOl Learning Abilities, test,
6. the developing of an open "market place" for
showing of personal creative products in the schools,
and
7. the natural developmental progression in creative
potential.
REFERENCES GETZELS, J. W. & JACKSON, P. W. Creativity and intelligence. NYC:
Wiley, 1%2.
GOWAN, J. C. Education and guidance of the ablest. Springfield, IL:
Charles C. Thomas, 1964.
GUILFORD, J. P. Three faces of intellect. American Psychologist, 1959.
KHATENA, J. Visual imagery. Gifted Child Quarterly, 1968, Winter.
MEEKER, M. Differential syndromes of giftedness. Journal of Special Edu-
cation, 1968, 2(2).
WILSON, M. The relationship of humor, divergent thinking and achievement.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Southern California, 1966.
Mary Meeker.
Address: SOl Institute, 214 Main Street, EI Segundo, California 90245.

62