Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 2007, Vol. 1, No.

4, 243246

Copyright 2007 by the American Psychological Association 1931-3896/07/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/1931-3896.1.4.243

Brief Reports

Creativity and Cognitive Style: The Relationship Between Field-Dependence-Independence, Expected Evaluation, and Creative Performance
Angie L. Miller
Ball State University
This study explored the effects of cognitive style and expected evaluation on creativity. Past research has shown that an expectation of evaluation can have a negative impact on creativity. In addition, those individuals classified as field-independent rather than field-dependent are more likely to have higher creativity scores. Thus, an interaction between expected evaluation and cognitive style was hypothesized, along with main effects for expectation of evaluation and cognitive style. Participants created a collage to measure creativity, either with or without an expectation of evaluation, and then cognitive style was measured using the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT). The hypothesis was partially supported. The more field-independent an individual, the higher the creativity score. Despite the results of previous research, evaluation condition did not significantly affect creativity; this finding is discussed in terms of the experimental situation and the conceptualization of motivation. Further investigations of cognitive style and motivational conditions are suggested. Keywords: creativity, cognitive style, field dependence-independence, expected evaluation

For many years, psychologists have been researching various components of creativity, seeking to shed light on this mysterious concept. The current paper investigates the possibility of an interaction between environmental influences and cognitive style on creative performance. As previous research suggests that an expectation of evaluation can have a negative impact on creative performance (Amabile, 1996), and that the cognitive style of field dependence-independence (FDI) is also related to creativity (Martinsen & Kaufman, 1999), an empirical study was designed to assess how these seemingly separate components might work together to influence creativity.

Expected Evaluation
Past research has demonstrated that an expectation of evaluation consistently decreases levels of creativity (Amabile, 1979; Amabile, Goldfarb, & Brackfield, 1990). The explanation for these findings is usually related to task motivation. Generally, individuals that expect their work to be evaluated shift their focus from the intrinsic motivation of the task itself to an extrinsic motivation of receiving a good evaluation. This change in motivation results in lowered creative output, since a central aspect of creativity, in

addition to relevant skills, is an intrinsic motivation to engage in the task itself (Amabile, 1996). One setting in which the effects of evaluation are particularly salient is education. The entire academic system is often based on a series of evaluations, and emphasis on grades can often be a deterrent to creativity. Research on success of creativity encouragement in educational settings has emphasized that teachers should use evaluative techniques that concentrate on future improvement rather than those that compare performance to standardized norms (Giaconia & Hedges, 1982). As evaluation is considered an essential aspect of education by our society, the research that explores the detrimental impact of evaluation on creativity has striking implications.

Field-Dependence-Independence
The notion of FDI can be conceptualized as a continuum, with those at the independent end tending to see objects or details as discrete from their backgrounds, and those on the dependent end tending to be affected by the prevailing field or context. Witkin and Goodenough (1981) emphasized several characteristics of cognitive styles, citing that a cognitive style is pervasive in functioning, differs between individuals, is value-neutral, and is generally stable over time. More recent conceptualizations of cognitive styles, or the currently utilized term intellectual styles (Zhang & Sternberg, 2005), have argued against the assertion that styles are stable and free of values. However, current researchers are also aware that understanding many different cognitive styles, not just FDI, from a broader perspective importantly recognizes both the similarities and the usefulness of many of these styles as
243

Angie L. Miller, Department of Educational Psychology, Ball State University. This study was conducted as part of the authors Masters thesis, with support from the Joseph W. and Marcella S. Hollis fund. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Angie L. Miller, Department of Educational Psychology, Ball State University, Muncie, IN, 47306. E-mail: almiller@bsu.edu

244

BRIEF REPORTS

a means to bridge the separation between personality and cognitive constructs (Zhang & Sternberg, 2006). Although the concept of FDI was initially proposed within the realm of perceptual experience, this cognitive style has been investigated in terms of the impact on overall functioning, generalizing into the broad dimensions of cognitive and social behavior. Overall, the research indicates that field-independents may be more skilled at tasks of cognitive restructuring, whereas fielddependents may be more skilled at tasks requiring interpersonal competencies (Bertini, Pizzamiglio, & Wapner, 1986). Although the findings are somewhat mixed, many researchers have also demonstrated a positive relationship between field-independence and creative performance (Cropley, 1997; Martinsen & Kaufman, 1999; Morris & Bergum, 1978). Although interest in cognitive style in the field of cognitive psychology has waned over the past few decades (see Sternberg & Grigorenko, 1997), investigations of cognitive style, FDI in particular, continue to be of interest within the field of education. FDI has been linked to academic achievement and choice of academic major for college undergraduates, and research has also suggested that cognitive style may play a role in the effectiveness of certain instructional techniques and that the cognitive styles of both students and their classroom teachers can have an impact on learning and interaction in the classroom (Morgan, 1997). The more recent investigations of FDI within the applied setting of education implies not only the usefulness of the construct in the educational field, but a move toward a more contextual and ecologically valid understanding of cognitive style in empirical research.

Materials
To assess creative performance, the Consensual Assessment Technique research paradigm developed by Amabile (1996) was utilized. The dependent variable of creativity was measured with a 30-min collage-making task, and each collage was assigned a creativity score from a set of independent expert raters that were blind to condition. To determine FDI, participants completed the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) (Oltman, Raskin, & Witkin, 1971). In the GEFT, the subject is given several different complex figures and must identify a smaller figure that is embedded within each larger, more complex one (for additional psychometric information, see Goodstein, 1978 or Thompson & Melancon, 1987).

Procedure
For the collage-making task, participants were randomly assigned to the evaluative and nonevaluative conditions. In the evaluative condition, the participants were informed that they would receive a score on their collage that was indicative of intelligence, decision-making, and success in academic settings. In the nonevaluative condition, the participants were informed that their collage would not be evaluated because the study was examining concentration processes. After completing their collages, the participants completed the GEFT. Upon completion of the GEFT, participants were given a manipulation check. After all the data had been collected, the judges then rated all of the collages for creativity.

The Current Study

Previous research demonstrates that both social factors and cognitive style are related to creativity. Research also shows a connection between FDI and responses to cues in the external environment; more specifically, field-dependents are more sensitive to social elements of the situation (Witkin & Goodenough, 1977). Although many cognitive styles may play a role in creativity (Guastello, Shissler, Driscoll, & Hyde, 1998), FDI was specifically chosen for this study based on the relevant research as well as a consistency in format between the intended measures of FDI and creativity both rely on primarily visual processes. Based on the empirical evidence that expected evaluation is one factor that can impact creative performance, one might conclude that the field-dependent individuals (who are already more sensitive to social cues) will be more adversely affected by expected evaluation than the field-independent individuals (who are better able to focus on internal elements). Given the previous evidence for the impact of cognitive style and social factors on creativity, it was hypothesized that those individuals that display more fielddependence would be more adversely affected on a creativity task when given an expectation of evaluation as compared with those individuals displaying more field-independence.

Results Manipulation Check and Interrater Reliability

In comparing the answer to the question On the first activity, did you expect your design to be evaluated? to the actual assigned condition, the results suggested that the manipulation was effective. A chi-square analysis indicated that there were significant differences between those that answered yes and no, and those that were in the evaluation and nonevaluation conditions, respectively; 2 (1) 7.901, p .005. For the interrater reliability of the three judges, Cronbachs alpha was calculated as .675. This coefficient was considered acceptable, and scoring information from all three raters was used in the final analysis.

Hypothesis Test
An ANCOVA procedure was used to test the hypothesis. Evaluation condition was included as a categorical variable, but cognitive style, along with the interaction term, were included as continuous variables. The variables of amount of time spent on collage (continuous) and previous art experience (categorical, yes or no) were also included to control for possible confounds. The results of the ANCOVA hypothesis test suggested that the interaction term was not significant and the null hypothesis regarding the interaction between cognitive style and evaluation condition was not rejected; F(1, 84) .604, ns. Based on this result, the interaction term was removed from subsequent analyses. An additional ANCOVA to test for main effects suggests that when controlling for time on collage and previous art experience

Method Participants
Participants were 90 undergraduate students from a Midwestern university, ages ranging from 18 to 32 (M 19.74). This sample consisted of 30 males and 60 females.

BRIEF REPORTS

245 Limitations and Future Directions

and including cognitive style as a continuous variable, the difference in creativity scores for evaluation condition is not significant; F(1, 85) 3.137, ns. The pattern of means further indicates that this predicted main effect was not supported, as those in the evaluation condition (M 4.236) received slightly higher creativity scores than those in the nonevaluation condition (M 3.667). However, the results of the ANCOVA indicate that the relationship between creativity and GEFT scores is significant; F(1, 85) 4.545, p .036; .057. The relationship in this analysis was in the predicted direction, thus indicating that the higher the GEFT score, the higher the creativity score.

Discussion
Overall, the results suggest that the hypothesis was partially supported by the data analysis. The more field-independent individuals scored significantly higher on the creativity measure than those that were more field-dependent. However, the results indicate that instead of having a negative impact on creativity, an expectation of evaluation had no significant effect. Additionally, the predicted interaction between evaluation condition and FDI was not significant.

Field-Dependence-Independence
Although no previous research has used the Consensual Assessment Technique as a measure of creativity in comparison with measures of FDI, the results conceptually replicate the findings of previous research (Cropley, 1997). To further investigate how various measures of creativity, such as visual, verbal, or self-report formats, might differently relate to cognitive style, future studies might include multiple measures of creativity and FDI. Even comparisons between the different Consensual Assessment tasks (i.e., making collages, creating poems, storytelling) might lend further support to individual differences in creativity.

In addition to the potential limiting factors of the experimental situation, there are a few other limitations to the study. The low number of raters for the collages may have been a limitation. On such a subjective task, a higher number of raters would have increased the interrater reliability and in turn reduced random error. Most research designs utilizing the Consensual Assessment Technique have a higher number of raters, although it has been successfully completed with as few as two separate raters (Amabile, 1996). As was noted previously, it might be beneficial for researchers to continue exploring appropriate matches between measures of cognitive style and measures of creativity. As there are several known verbally based measures of creativity (Davis, 2004), an interesting development in the realm of cognitive style might be the creation of a verbally based measure of FDI. Additional research is needed using the reconceptualization of cognitive styles as broad intellectual styles (Zhang & Sternberg, 2005) and their relationship to creative performance. The implications of this study can be extended into several realms. Creativity is an important construct in psychology, education, business, and beyond. Awareness of cognitive style may be greatly beneficial for teachers, employers, and even acquaintances to identify how one might function within the environment. The interest in both cognitive style and increasing creativity within the field of education provides an especially compelling application of this line of research, as combined investigations can work to clarify the best practices for education, in terms of individual differences and environmental situations. This study provides some insight about the role that both cognitive style and expected evaluation can play in creativity, but more research is needed to effectively investigate and apply the findings of this study.

References
Amabile, T. M. (1979). Effects of external evaluation on artistic creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 221233. Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Amabile, T. M., Goldfarb, P., & Brackfield, S. C. (1990). Social influences on creativity: Evaluation, coaction, and surveillance. Creativity Research Journal, 3, 6 21. Bertini, M., Pizzamiglio, L., & Wapner, S. (1986). Epilogue: Relation of Witkins work to future trends in psychology. In M. Bertini, L. Puzzamiglio, & S. Wapner (Eds.), Field dependence in psychological theory, research, and application (pp. 119 125). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Cropley, A. J. (1997). Fostering creativity in the classroom: General principles. In M. A. Runco (Ed.), The creativity research handbook (Vol. 1, pp. 83114). Creeskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Davis, G. (2004). Creativity is forever (5th ed.). Dubuque, IA: KendallHunt Publishing Company. Giaconia, R. M., & Hedges, L. V. (1982). Identifying features of effective open education. Review of Educational Research, 52, 579 602. Goodstein, L. D. (1978). The Group Embedded Figures Test. In O. K. Buros (Ed.), Mental measurement yearbook (pp. 837 838). Highland Park, NJ: Gryphon. Guastello, S. J., Shissler, J., Driscoll, J., & Hyde, T. (1998). Are some cognitive styles more creatively productive than others? Journal of Creative Behavior, 32, 7791.

Expected Evaluation
The predicted effect of expected evaluation was not found in the data analysis; thus, the current study did not replicate the findings of most previous research (Amabile, 1979). One possible reason for the unexpected results of the present study may be related to the experimental situation. It is entirely plausible that the overarching knowledge of all participants that they were required to attend as part of a course requirement led to an overall extrinsic motivation regardless of experimental condition. Another possible reason for the present patterns of results may be because of the conceptual understanding of the role of extrinsic motivation in the creative process. Although intrinsic motivation may be conducive to creativity, perhaps extrinsic motivation need not be always considered detrimental, as Hennessey and Amabile (1988) acknowledge that under certain circumstances or with certain individuals, intrinsic and extrinsic forces combine in an additive fashion (p. 31). However, more research is needed to further investigate the idea that both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation can unite to reduce the negative impact for those expecting evaluation in other laboratory and applied settings.

246

BRIEF REPORTS Thompson, B., & Melancon, J. G. (1987). Measurement characteristics of the Group Embedded Figures Test. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 47, 765772. Witkin, H. A., & Goodenough, D. R. (1977). Field dependence and interpersonal behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 661 689. Witkin, H. A., & Goodenough, D. R. (1981). Cognitive styles: Essence and origins. New York: International Universities Press, Inc. Zhang, L., & Sternberg, R. J. (2005). A threefold model of intellectual styles. Educational Psychology Review, 17, 153. Zhang, L., & Sternberg, R. J. (2006). The nature of intellectual styles. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. (1988). The conditions of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychological perspectives (pp. 1138). New York: Cambridge University Press. Martinsen, O., & Kaufmann, G. (1999). Cognitive style and creativity. In M. A. Runco & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (Vol. 1, pp. 273282). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Morgan, H. (1997). Cognitive styles and classroom learning. Westport, CT: Praeger. Morris, T. L., & Berum, B. O. (1978). A note on the relationship between field-independence and creativity. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 46, 1114. Oltman, P. K., Raskin, E., & Witkin, H. A. (1971). Group Embedded Figures Test. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (1997). Are cognitive styles still in style? American Psychologist, 52, 700 712.

Received April 24, 2007 Revision received September 17, 2007 Accepted September 18, 2007

ORDER FORM
Start my 2008 subscription to Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts ISSN: 1931-3896 ___ ___ ___ $57.00, APA MEMBER/AFFILIATE $83.00, INDIVIDUAL NONMEMBER $327.00, INSTITUTION
In DC add 5.75% / In MD add 5% sales tax

Check enclosed (make payable to APA) Charge my:

Cardholder Name Card No.

VISA

MasterCard

American Express

TOTAL AMOUNT ENCLOSED

_______ _______ _______ _______ $ _______

Exp. Date
Signature (Required for Charge)

BILLING ADDRESS:
Street City Daytime Phone E-mail State Zip

Subscription orders must be prepaid. (Subscriptions are on a calendar year basis only.) Allow 4-6 weeks for delivery of the first issue. Call for international subscription rates. SEND THIS ORDER FORM TO: American Psychological Association Subscriptions 750 First Street, NE Washington, DC 20002-4242 Or call 800-374-2721, fax 202-336-5568. TDD/TTY 202-336-6123. For subscription information, e-mail: subscriptions@apa.org

MAIL TO:
Name Address City APA Member # State Zip
ACAA08