See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254301572

Motor Creativity and Creative Thinking in

Children: The Diverging Role of Inhibition

Article in Creativity Research Journal July 2011

DOI: 10.1080/10400419.2011.595993

CITATIONS READS

15 321

3 authors, including:

Caterina Pesce
Italian University of Sport and Movement "Foro Italico"
97 PUBLICATIONS 933 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Caterina Pesce on 12 August 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
This article was downloaded by: [Alma Mater Studiorum - Universit di Bologna]
On: 21 November 2011, At: 01:08
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Creativity Research Journal

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hcrj20

Motor Creativity and Creative Thinking in Children: The

Diverging Role of Inhibition
a a b
Patrizia Scibinetti , Nicoletta Tocci & Caterina Pesce
a
Department of Education in Sport and Human Motion, Italian University Sport and
Movement
b
Department of Human Motion and Sport Science, Italian University Sport and Movement

Available online: 05 Aug 2011

To cite this article: Patrizia Scibinetti, Nicoletta Tocci & Caterina Pesce (2011): Motor Creativity and Creative Thinking in
Children: The Diverging Role of Inhibition, Creativity Research Journal, 23:3, 262-272

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2011.595993

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to
anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should
be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,
proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in
connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 CREATIVITY RESEARCH JOURNAL, 23(3), 262272, 2011
Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1040-0419 print=1532-6934 online
DOI: 10.1080/10400419.2011.595993

Motor Creativity and Creative Thinking in Children:

The Diverging Role of Inhibition
Patrizia Scibinetti and Nicoletta Tocci
Downloaded by [Alma Mater Studiorum - Universit di Bologna] at 01:08 21 November 2011

Department of Education in Sport and Human Motion, Italian University Sport and
Movement

Caterina Pesce
Department of Human Motion and Sport Science, Italian University Sport and Movement

This study investigated the commonalities and differences between motor creativity and
creative thinking in children and how executive functions differently inuence them.
Thirty-one children, aged 7 to 8 years, were administered Bertsch Test of Motor Crea-
tivity, Torrance Test of Creative Thinking, the Random Number Generation (RNG)
task tapping executive functions, and the Movement Assessment Battery for Children
(M-ABC). Scores for three dimensions of motor creativity and creative thinking (u-
ency, exibility, and originality), selected indexes of executive function (inhibition and
working memory updating) and motor competence scores were submitted to correla-
tional and regression analyses. Results showed that there is no association between
motor creativity and motor competence, but a signicant association between creative
moving and thinking for all their dimensions except for originality. Moreover, orig-
inality in thinking was predicted by low inhibitory ability, although originality in mov-
ing by high inhibitory ability. Results suggested that there are commonalities in the
processes responsible for the uent and exible production of creative thoughts and
movements, whereas there was a domain-specicity as concerns the role played by
inhibitory functions in the production of original solutions during creative moving.

The on-going debate on whether creativity is a general
ability applying similarly across content areas or a set
of abilities tailored to specic disciplines and tasks is
continuing in more recent research with considerable
implications for creativity theory, assessment, and edu-
cational practices (Lubart & Guignard, 2004; Plucker
& Zabelina, 2009; Runco, 1987). Two recent hybrid
models have shifted attention to the question of what
components are general and what components are spe-
cic or when they become specic (Baer & Kaufman,
2005; Plucker & Beghetto, 2004). According to Plucker
and Beghettos (2005) developmental perspective,
domain and task specicity of creativity become more
pronounced with advancing age and with gains in
Correspondence should be sent to Patrizia Scibinetti, Italian
University Sport and MovementIUSM, Piazza L. De Bosis 15,
00135 Rome, Italy. E-mail: patrizia.scibinetti@uniroma4.it
experience that, in turn, generally result from an exten-
sive commitment to the domain and=or tasks of interest.
The model by Baer and Kaufman (2005), the
Amusement Park Theory (APT), is a hierarchic model
that starts from general requirements for all creative
achievements and moves thorough progressively more
specic levels: general thematic areas (e.g., hands-on
creativity), domains (e.g., motor or bodily-kinaesthetic
creativity) and microdomains or specic tasks (e.g.,
gross-motor or ne-motor tasks).
MOTOR AND SPORTS CREATIVITY
Creative behavior plays a key role in the performance
of many sports. When considering the diverging psy-
chomotor and cognitive demands that characterize dif-
ferent sports, however, one can assume that creativity is

highly task-specic within this domain. The ability to
produce creative movements and actions may largely
differ, for instance, when an individual is faced with
the conditions characterizing dance during individual
or contact improvisation (Fink, Graif & Neubauer,
2009; Torrents, Castaner, Dinusova, & Anguera,
2010), or with the conditions characterizing team
games, where the environment is constantly changing
and unpredictable and there is limited time to make
decisions and produce unexpected, original solutions
(Memmert, 2007, 2009; Memmert & Roth, 2007).
Although sports, and particularly team games, offer
the possibility to analyze creative performances involv-
Downloaded by [Alma Mater Studiorum - Universit di Bologna] at 01:08 21 November 2011
ing complex motor behaviors, Memmert (2007, 2009)
and Memmert and Roth (2007) did not address the
question at what extent motor creativity and creative
thinking contribute to creative actions such as tactical
behaviors in team sports.
Apart from sport-related creativity research, studies
examining motor creativity are scarce as compared to
the large amount of creativity research focused on cre-
ative thinking (see Kim, 2006 for a review). Further-
more, confounding is generated by the fact that it
has still not clearly dened whether measures obtained
with tests of creativity in moving are measures of
domain-specic creativity or movement-based measures
of creative thinking. Motor uency and exibility mea-
sures obtained with the divergent movement ability
(DMA) test, evaluating the ability to perform and mod-
ify fundamental motor patterns, have been referred to as
measures of motor creativity, but also as indicative ele-
ments of divergent and critical thinking (Cleland, 1994;
Konstantinidou, Pollatou, & Zachopoulou, 2005;
Trevlas, Matsouka, & Zachopoulou, 2003). On the
other hand, the Torrance Thinking Creatively in Action
and Movement (TCAM) test (Torrance, 1981), that was
originally designed to sample childrens creative think-
ing abilities by means of measures obtained in
movement-based creativity tasks, is highly correlated
with the DMA performance outcomes (Zachopoulou,
Makri, & Pollatou, 2009) and has been used as a mea-
sure of specic motor creativity (Konstantinidou et al.,
2005). Moreover, few studies have investigated whether
motor creativity in childhood may be also inuenced by
age-related stages of motor development (Tocci,
Scibinetti, & Zelli, 2004; Zachopoulou & Macri, 2005).
Thus, the degree of differentiation between creative
thinking and moving in children is an issue in need for
further research.
The general aim of this study was to contribute
further to the understanding of the general versus spe-
cic aspects of being creative by jointly analyzing motor
creativity and creative thinking in children. There is evi-
dence of a close parallelism in the development of motor
coordination and higher-level cognitive functions, as
CREATIVE MOVING AND THINKING AND INHIBITION 263
well as in the maturation of neural substrates in the
cerebellum and prefrontal cortex involved in creative
thinking (Delis et al., 2007; Diamond, 2000; Vandervert,
Schimpf & Liu, 2007). Also, the cerebellum seems to be
important for both motor and cognitive functions and is
considered a computational system contributing to the
efciency and adaptability of movements and thoughts
(Vandervert et al., 2007). Therefore, it may be expected
that there are some commonalities between motor crea-
tivity and creative thinking in children. On the other
side, there seems to be little overlap in the processes
underlying motor ability and creativity-relevant,
higher-level cognitive functions in children (Piek &
Dyck, 2004); thus, we also hypothesized that some dis-
tinct cognitive processes might underlie creative perfor-
mances in thinking and moving.
The Development of Creativity and Executive
Function
Creativity has been associated to higher-level cognitive
functionsparticularly to the executiveand tests of
creative thinking are assumed to reect such functions
(e.g., Naglieri & Kaufman, 2001). Executive function
is an umbrella term for a set of component processes,
such as planning, scheduling, working memory, and
inhibition, required for the successful regulation of
thoughts and goal-directed, intelligent behaviors
especially in nonroutine situations. The development
of executive functions occurs throughout childhood
and continues until young adulthood (Best et al.,
2009) with distinct developmental trajectories for the
different executive function component processes
(Huizinga et al., 2006).
Neurobiological models of executive function have
highlighted the key role played by the frontal and parti-
cularly prefrontal cortex (e.g., Banich, 2009) and the
close linkage between the development of executive
functions and the renement of prefrontal cortical net-
works (Diamond, 2002). Also, creativity requires that
kind of executive abilities that are typically ascribed to
the prefrontal cortex (Bekhtereva, Danko, Starchenko,
Pakhomov, & Medvedev, 2001). In his neuroscientic
framework of creativity, Dietrich (2004) suggested that
the prefrontal cortex contributes to the creative process
in three ways: evaluating the appropriateness of a novel
insight, activating executive processes relevant to the
ongoing task, and implementing the goal-oriented
expression of the insight. In studies on motor creativity,
it has still not been investigated what role is played by
executive functions. Thus, the second aim of this study
was to assess whether inhibition and working memory
updating, which are involved in creative thinking
(Dietrich, 2004), are similarly or differently involved in
motor creativity.
 264 SCIBINETTI, TOCCI, AND PESCE
METHOD
Participants
Thirty-one healthy male (n 19) and female (n 12)
Italian children aged 78 years belonging to a primary
school in Rome participated in this study. The parents
of all children who volunteered provided written
informed consent for their children to be involved in a
study in which they would perform paper-and-pencil
tests and motor performance tests that were enjoyable
and appropriate for their age. The study protocol was
started after institutional approval.
Downloaded by [Alma Mater Studiorum - Universit di Bologna] at 01:08 21 November 2011
Assessment of Motor Creativity
Childrens motor creativity was assessed by using the
test developed and validated for primary school children
by Bertsch (1983). This test provides measurements of
motor creativity by means of two separate versions
(form A and B) composed of four tasks each to be per-
formed on the oor, with a bench, a hoop or a ball,
respectively. Although the four tasks vary from mainly
gross motor (oor, bench) to mainly ne motor (hoop,
ball) coordination demands, the two forms vary in the
degrees of freedom of the movement tasks, with form
A providing no specic performance modality and form
B partially dening it. For instance, to perform the
bench task in its form A, children standing in front of
the bench are free to do anything they want for a certain
period of time. In the form B of the bench task, they are
instead constrained not to loose body contact with the
bench while freely moving around it. In the present
study, we selected form B in line with general recom-
mendations by Torrance (1988) on how to study the
creativity process. Each child participated individually
to the four motor creativity tasks in randomized order
during school hours for a total test duration of about
30 min. The tasks lasted 2 min and 30 sec (hoop and
oor) or 3 min (ball and bench). Children who stopped
performing were encouraged to stay on task by prompt-
ing them again to follow the original instructions,
described in the following for each task and ending with
the common sentence: Try to nd ways that are orig-
inal and that other children may not think about. Dur-
ing each task, two trained observers independently
reported childrens behaviors in a written form on separ-
ate observation sheets. The two observers participated
to training sessions to reach adequate interobserver
agreement rates.
Hoop. Two parallel lines were put at a distance of
3.50 m. Children were asked to carry a hoop and move
from one line to the other in whatever way they wanted.
The verbal instruction was: Your task is to move the
hoop from one line to the other. You can let it go on
its own or take it with you. Show me anything you
can do that comes to mind.
Ball. Children were situated in the middle of a square
measuring 2.50 m on each side. Their task was to use a
ball to hit, one at a time, seven 1
1 m large targets
on the wall, oor, or ceiling areas outside the square.
The child was free to use the ball in whatever way he
or she wanted. The verbal instruction was: You see
all the targets around you. Imagine they are glasses.
Imagine breaking them with this ball without going
out of your home (i.e., the square). Whats important
is not so much to break all the glasses but to try to break
them every time in a different way.
Bench. A bench was located in the middle of a room
and two hoops were positioned at the two ends of the
bench representing the starting and arrival point,
respectively. The verbal instruction was: You have to
go from one hoop to the other and back, keeping a part
of your body always in contact with the bench. The
child was free to perform the task in any way he or
she could think of.
Floor. Two parallel lines delimited a 2.50
squared-meter area on the oor. The verbal instruction
was: Your task is to move from one line to the other.
You are free to do anything you want between these
two lines. Show me all possible ways you know or that
may come to your mind to do that.
The test has an acceptable internal consistency, as
indexed by the Cronbachs alpha coefcient across the
four tasks (a .76). Thus, the Bertsch test provides
reliable measures of individual differences in childrens
motor creativity.
Data coding and scoring. Only those motor beha-
viors that were clearly recorded by both observers were
coded by a previously trained investigator. Data coding
consisted in assigning scores on three separate dimen-
sions, namely uency, exibility, and originality. Flu-
ency was scored in terms of the number of different
behaviors displayed by the child during each motor task.
Flexibility and originality were instead coded and scored
by means of scoring schemes developed by Bertsch
(1983) on the basis of normative data obtained with
his initial observation of nearly 7,000 different behaviors
in children. Flexibility was scored referring to movement
behavior categories identied by Bertsch for each
task (16 for the hoop and the ball tasks, 44 for the
bench task, and 36 for the oor task). Such categories
summarize motor behaviors as a function of body

position, movement direction and type. The exibility
score is the sum of the categories for which at least
one behavior was observed, categories with two or more
observed behaviors being counted only once. Originality
was quantied assigning a score ranging from 0 (low
originality) to 3 (high originality) to each behavior in
each category on the basis of the relative frequency of
such behavior in Bertschs normative sample. The u-
ency, exibility, and originality scores for each motor
task were standardized. To obtain a total score for each
creativity dimension, standardized scores obtained from
the four tasks were added.
Downloaded by [Alma Mater Studiorum - Universit di Bologna] at 01:08 21 November 2011
Assessment of creative thinking. The Italian ver-
sion of the Torrance (1989) Test of Creative Thinking
(TTCT), Figural Form A was group administered at
school. The TTCT Figural Form A is designed for indi-
viduals in kindergarten through graduate school and
beyond. It consists of three timed pencil-and-paper pic-
ture construction and completion activities lasting
10 min each, with 1-min breaks between tasks, for a total
working time of about 30 min. According to testing
guidelines, the administrator invited the examinees to
enjoy these activities and created a playful
problem-solving atmosphere to minimize threatening
feelings linked to a performance-oriented climate.
Activity I: Picture construction task. Children had
to construct a picture using a darkened curve shape
(jellybean or teardrop) provided on the page as a
stimulus which must be integrated in the picture
construction.
Activity II: Picture completion. Children had to use
10 incomplete gures to make a gure or object draw-
ings to the incomplete gures, avoiding usual and obvi-
ous completions.
Activity III: Parallel lines. Children had to use 30
pairs of straight lines drawn on three pages to make
an original picture out of each pair of lines, overcoming
the tendency to perceive the same stimuli in the same
way.
Data coding and scoring. Scoring of the TTCT was
performed by a trained investigator based on three sub-
scales of norm-referenced measures: uency, exibility,
and originality. Although in the third edition of the
TTCT (Torrance & Ball, 1984), the measure of exibility
was eliminated because of its too high correlation with
uency, in the present study we maintained it to perform
a comparison with the corresponding dimension of
CREATIVE MOVING AND THINKING AND INHIBITION 265
motor creativity. Instead, we did not include the mea-
sure of elaboration and two further measures of creative
potential that were added in the third edition (abstract-
ness of titles and resistance to premature change),
because they were not pertinent to the comparison with
creativity measures in the motor domain that included
only uidity, exibility, and originality (Bertsch,
1983). Fluency was scored by the number of gural
images produced by the examinees; it reects the ability
to generate a large amount of relevant ideas. Flexibility
was scored by the variety of categories of relevant
responses. Originality was scored by the number of
statistically infrequent responses on the basis of norma-
tive data; it reects the ability to produce uncommon
or unique ideas. According to the TTCT manual,
raw scores were converted into standard scores to
have comparable ranges for uidity, exibility, and
originality.
Assessment of Executive Function
The Random Number Generation (RNG) task is a test
tapping executive functions (Towse & Neil, 1998). For
this study, we used the version rst employed by Towse
and McIachlan (1999), demonstrating the feasibility of
the RNG task with children. The children were tested
individually on a quiet area of school, with the RNG
task being introduced as a game involving numbers.
They were instructed to verbally generate a random
sequence of numbers between 1 and 10 to each beat
of a 70-beat sequence with an interbeat interval of 1.5
seconds. To offer children an age-appropriate, easily
understandable example of what randomness is, the
instruction included a hide-and-seek type of game
(Towse & McIachlan, 1999). Prior to data collection,
participants performed a practice series of 70 numbers.
Then, there was a pause of about 4550 sec, during
which they were allowed to ask questions concerning
the test. Thereafter, they generated a second series of
70 numbers that were recorded on a tape. Both the
omission of a number generation in correspondence
of one tone and the production of numbers lower than
1 (0) or higher than 10 (11, 12, etc.) were considered
errors and discarded. If errors exceeded a predened
maximum threshold of ve, the entire block must be
repeated. The randomness of the sequence of numbers
was measured by means of 18 different indexes
described by Towse and Neil. Among those, we selected
six indexes reecting two creativity-relevant compo-
nents of executive function: executive inhibition, which
seems to have a differentiated impact on convergent
and divergent thinking (White & Shah, 2006) and
working memory updating, which is strictly involved
in creative problem solving (Passolunghi & Pazzaglia,
2004).
 266 SCIBINETTI, TOCCI, AND PESCE
Computation of Indexes of Randomness
The three indexes theoretically related to the inhibiting
function were the turning point index (TPI), the adjac-
ency score (A comb), and the runs score (Runs). The
TPI is a measure of the similarity between the real fre-
quency of turning points, marking a change between
ascending and descending series of numbers (e.g., the
response change between the digits 2 and 5 in an hypo-
thetical sequence 9, 7, 2, 5, 6, 8) and their theoretical
frequency in random responses. The A comb measures
the relative frequency of pairs of adjacent ascending or
descending numbers (e.g., 78 or 43) and reects the
Downloaded by [Alma Mater Studiorum - Universit di Bologna] at 01:08 21 November 2011
habitual tendency to count forward or backward. The
Runs score is an index the variability of the number of
digits in successive ascending or descending runs. High
levels of TPI, but low levels of A comb and Runs
correspond to a high ability to inhibit, avoiding the
production of stereotyped strings and prepotent
associates.
The three indexes related to the working memory
updating function were the redundancy score (R), the
coupon score (Coupon), and the mean repetition gap
(Mean RG). The R index reects the unbalance of
response alternative frequencies that derives from a
more frequent usage of given numbers, as compared to
others in a sequence of generated numbers based on
the theoretical frequencies of each digit. The Coupon
score designates the number of digits generated until
the entire set of digits alternatives (1 to 10) has been
used. The Mean RG is the average quantity of digits
between successive occurrences of the same number cal-
culated for all digits throughout the whole sequence
(e.g., in the sequence 2, 8, 4, 6, 2, 9, 7, 8, the digits
2 and 8 reoccur with a mean gap equal to 5). High levels
of Mean RG, but low levels of R and Coupon corre-
spond to a high ability to update working memory
and employ equality of responses by using preferentially
alternation among numbers.
Assessment of Movement Competence
Childrens movement competence was estimated by
means of the Italian version of the movement assess-
ment battery for children (M-ABC) developed by
Henderson and Sudgen (1992). This test evaluates move-
ment competence providing objective quantitative data
on both gross motor and ne motor coordination of
children aged from 4 to 12 years with eight tasks differ-
entiated in four age-related difculty levels. The tasks
are grouped under three subheadings: manual dexterity,
ball skills, and static and dynamic balance.
Manual dexterity. The three tasks evaluating manual
dexterity in 7- to 8-year-old children were placing pegs,
threading lace, and ower trail. In the placing pegs task,
the child must place 12 plastic pegs, one at a time, in all
holes on a board. In the threading lace task, the child
must thread a lace back and forth through the holes in
a lacing board. In the ower trail task, the child must
draw, with the preferred hand, one continuous line fol-
lowing the ower trail on a record form without crossing
its boundaries. In the formal trials of placing pegs and
threading lace, the examiner measured the seconds taken
to complete each task. In the ower trail task, the exam-
iner recorded the number of errors, i.e., the number of
times the drawn lines moves outside a boundary.
Ball skills. The two tasks evaluating ball skills in 7-
to 8-year-old children were one-hand bounce and catch
and throwing a bean bag into a box. In the rst task,
the child must bounce a tennis ball on the oor and
catch it with the same hand. In the throwing a bean
bag into a box task, the child must throw the bean
bag into a target box. In both types of tasks, the exam-
iner recorded the number of correctly executed trials
(successful catches and throws, respectively) out of 10
attempts.
Static and dynamic balance. The task evaluating
static balance in 7- to 8-year-old children was the stork
balance, and the tasks evaluating dynamic balance were
the jumping in squares task and heel-to-toe walking. In
stork balancing, the child must stand on one foot, place
the sole of the other foot against the side of the support-
ing knee, and put the hands on the hips. The examiner
records the number of seconds, up to 20, that the child
maintained balance without moving the standing and
the nonstanding foot. In jumping in squares, the child
had to make ve continuous jumps forward from a
starting square to further ve squares. The examiner
recorded the number of correct and consecutive jumps
completed over ve without performance errors such
as landing on or outside the lines, jumping more than
once in a square and landing with the feet far apart.
In heel-to-toe walking, the child had to walk on a line
placing the heel of one foot against the toe of the other
for 15 steps. The examiner recorded the number of con-
secutive steps performed by the child without leaving
space between toe and heel or stepping off the line.
Data coding and scoring. The M-ABC data were
standardized to compute average scores for the three
subheadings of manual dexterity, ball skills, and static
and dynamic balance. The data were also transformed
into a total score of impairment of motor function
according to age-related norms (Henderson & Sudgen,
1992). The score indicates the extent to which a child
 CREATIVE MOVING AND THINKING AND INHIBITION 267

TABLE 1
Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis Model of Fluency, Flexibility, and Originality in Creative Moving as a Function of Fluency and Originality
in Creative Thinking and of Executive Functioning (InhibitionTPI, A Comb, and Runsand Working Memory UpdatingR, Coupon, Mean RG)

Fluency in Moving Flexibility in Moving Originality in Moving

Beta (Std.) t p Beta (Std.) t p Beta (Std.) t p

Factors in Block 1
Fluency in thinking .69 2.10 .048 .64 1.82 .083 .69 2.10 .048
Originality in thinking n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.
R2 .37 .45 .36
Factors in Block 2
InhibitionTPI n.s. n.s n.s n.s. n.s. n.s. .59 2.71 .013
InhibitionA comb n.s. n.s n.s n.s. n.s. n.s. .83 3.24 .004
InhibitionRuns n.s. n.s n.s n.s. n.s. n.s. .41 2.05 .050
Downloaded by [Alma Mater Studiorum - Universit di Bologna] at 01:08 21 November 2011

Memory updatingR n.s. n.s n.s n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.
Memory updatingCoupon n.s. n.s n.s n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.
Memory updatingMean RG n.s. n.s n.s n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.
R2 change .17 .13 .27
Total R2 .54 Total R2 .58 Total R2 .63
Adjusted R2 .35 Adjusted R2 .39 Adjusted R2 .47

Note. Flexibility in thinking was excluded because of too high collinearity with uency.

falls below the level of his or her age peers, although it
does not differentiate between children who perform
above this level.
RESULTS
To identify eventual commonalities between motor crea-
tivity and creative thinking, we rst estimated the
strength of a linear relationship by computing bivariate
correlations (Pearsons r) between scores for three com-
mon dimensions shared by the tests of motor creativity
and creative thinking: uency, exibility, and orig-
inality. Results show a moderate, but signicant positive
correlation between uencies (r .451, p .005) and
exibilities (r .489, p .003), but an absence of
signicant correlation between originalities (r .088,
p .320).
To analyze the predictive value of creative thinking
and cognitive developmental factors for creative motor
performance, uency, exibility and originality scores
in the motor domain were submitted to three separate
2-block hierarchical regression analyses. The predictors
were: Torrance scores for uency, exibility, and orig-
inality (rst block); RNG indexes of executive function-
ing (inhibitionTPI, A comb, and Runsand working
memory updatingR, Coupon, and mean RG; second
block). The logic of this heuristic hierarchical model dis-
tinguishes between the impact of more proximal vari-
ables, represented by dimensions of creative thinking
paralleling those of motor creativity, and more distal
factors, represented by executive functions. In this
way, any domain-specic predictive value of executive
functions for motor creativity, if given, may be identied
controlling for or partialling out the commonalities
between motor creativity and creative thinking.
The results showed a high collinearity between u-
ency and exibility in creative thinking, conrming that
the two measures do not reect two independent dimen-
sions (Kim, 2006). Thus, exibility, showing the highest
collinearity (VIF statistic 11), was eliminated from the
regression model and the three regressions were rerun.
The results are reported in Table 1. The table shows
the predictors statistically signicant regression coef-
cients and the amount of variance explained (R2 and
R2 change) associated with each regression block. Flu-
ency in creative thinking signicantly predicted uency
and originality and, marginally signicantly, exibility
of performances in the motor creativity test. As regards
the prediction accrued by indexes of executive functions,
only the regression model performed on originality
scores yielded a signicant percentage of variance
explained by the three inhibition indices.
To assess further whether creative thinking and
motor creativity are supported by some distinct cogni-
tive processes relying on executive function, also uency,
exibility, and originality scores in creative thinking
were regressed on the six indices of inhibition and mem-
ory updating functions.
Also in this case, the regression model performed on
originality scores (Table 2) showed a signicant predic-
tion accrued by the three inhibition indexes. However,
the opposite signs of standardized b statistics obtained
when regressing inhibition indexes against originality
measures in moving (Table 1) and thinking (Table 2)
indicate diverging associations of inhibitory functions
with originality in motor and nonmotor domains. For
ease of graphic representation, the three indexes of
 268 SCIBINETTI, TOCCI, AND PESCE

TABLE 2
Multiple Regression Analysis Model of Fluency, Flexibility and Originality in Creative Thinking as a Function of Executive Functioning (Inhibition
TPI, A comb, and Runsand Working Memory UpdatingR, Coupon, Mean RG)

Fluency in Thinking Flexibility in Thinking Originality in Thinking

Beta (Std.) t p Beta (Std.) t p Beta (Std.) T p

InhibitionTPI n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. .52 2.57 .040
InhibitionA comb n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. .59 2.40 .024
InhibitionRuns n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. .47 2.41 .024
Memory updatingR n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.
Memory updatingCoupon n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.
Memory updatingmean RG n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.
Total R2 .23 Total R2 .18 R2 .36
Adjusted R2 .03 Adjusted R2 .02 Adjusted R2 .20
Downloaded by [Alma Mater Studiorum - Universit di Bologna] at 01:08 21 November 2011

inhibitory ability (TPI, A comb, and Runs) were stan-
dardized and merged into an average index. Before aver-
aging, since high TPI values reect high inhibitory
ability, although high A comb and Runs values reect
low inhibitory ability, A comb and Runs values were
reversed. In Figures 1 and 2, originality values in motor
creativity and creative thinking, respectively, are graphi-
cally represented as a function of the global index of
inhibitory function.
We also performed correlational analyses to control
for the potential inuence of individual differences in
fundamental gross-motor and ne-motor skills on
motor creativity task performances primarily involving
either gross-motor or ne-motor skills. Specically, we
computed bivariate correlations between gross-motor
creativity task performances (i.e., bench and oor) and
gross-motor M-ABC tasks performances (i.e., balance),
as well as between ne-motor creativity task perfor-
mances (i.e., ball and hoop) and M-ABC ne motor task
performances (manual dexterity and ball skills).
We did not nd any signicant correlations. A total
impairment score was computed for each child
according to the normative data by Henderson and
Sudgen (1992). The average score was 1.3 (1.8, range
07.5), corresponding to the 84th86th percentile. No
child fell below the critical threshold of motor develop-
mental impairment corresponding to the 5th percentile
(score 13.5) or below the threshold of borderline
motor developmental level represented by the 15th per-
centile (score 10.0).
DISCUSSION
The aim of this study was to assess if there are common-
alities and=or divergences between motor creativity and
creative thinking in children and what role is played by
creativity-relevant executive functions in the production
of creative movements and thoughts. On the whole, the
results give some support to middle-ground models
positioned between domain generality and specicity
(Amabile, 1996; Baer & Kaufman, 2005; Plucker &
Beghetto, 2004; Sternberg & Lubart, 1995) and suggest
that there is a differentiated inuence of inhibitory

FIGURE 1 Graphical representation of originality in motor creativity (Bertsch test) as a function of the global index of inhibitory function derived
from TPI, A comb, and Runs indexes (RNG test). (Figure is provided in color online.)
 CREATIVE MOVING AND THINKING AND INHIBITION
Downloaded by [Alma Mater Studiorum - Universit di Bologna] at 01:08 21 November 2011
FIGURE 2 Graphical representation of originality in creative thinking (Torrance test) as a function of the global index of inhibitory function
derived from TPI, A comb, and Runs indexes (RNG test). (Figure is provided in color online.)
executive functions on creative thinking and motor
creativity performances.
On the one hand, there seem to be some commonal-
ities between motor creativity and creative thinking, as
indicated by moderate, but signicant, correlations
between uencies and exibilities in performing the
Torrance and Bertsch tests. This suggests that there is
some similarity in the processes responsible for the u-
ent and exible production of a great amount of creative
thoughts and movements. On the other hand, the
absence of a signicant correlation between originalities
indicates that there is only a partial overlap between
dimensions of creative thinking and moving different
from originality. This conrms that the Bertsch test per-
formances are not merely movement-based measures of
creative thinking. However, the absence of evidence for
generality as concerns the originality dimension of crea-
tivity cannot be interpreted as evidence for domain
specicity. The afrmative evidence for specicity
emerged when considering the different role played by
inhibitory functions in the generation of original pro-
ducts in motor and nonmotor domains.
The regressions performed on uency, exibility, and
originality in motor creativity revealed that uency in
creative thinking is a predictor of all three dimensions,
suggesting that the generation of many thoughts may
be a fundamental prerequisite for being creative in
movement and action. The fact that inhibition indexes
predicted original thinking and moving in opposite fash-
ion (Figures 12) further advances the understanding of
the relationship between creativity and executive func-
tion. In fact, it highlights the diverging role played by
the inhibitory component of executive function in the
production of original solutions in different creativity
domains. As Figures 12 shows, a high originality in cre-
ative moving is predicted by high levels of inhibitory
ability, whereas a high originality in creative thinking
269
is predicted by low levels of inhibitory ability. The inte-
grative model of creativity by Baer and Kaufman (2005)
suggests that the determinants of creativity may vary in
quantity and quality from more general to more specic
levels. The present results suggest that the role of inhi-
bition is domain-specic, since it differently impacts cre-
ative thinking and moving, as well as dimension-specic,
since it impacts originality, but not uency or exibility.
The nonunivocal linkage between inhibition and orig-
inality nds some support in studies showing that orig-
inality behaves differently from other creativity
dimensions in the relationship with executive functions
(Abraham, Windmann, McKenne, & Gunturkun,
2007) and that the inhibitory function during develop-
ment is probably more multifaceted than other executive
functions (Huizinga et al., 2006).
Both conscious and unconscious control complemen-
tarily contribute to creative behavior and cognition
(Vandervert et al., 2007). Dietrich (2004) distinguished
between spontaneous insights, deriving from uncon-
scious and unltered thoughts, and deliberate searches
for insights, consisting in the conscious processing of
selected contents in working memory. Given the late
ontogenical development of the principal brain structure
underlying deliberate creative behavior, the prefrontal
cortex (Best et al., 2009), it may be argued that chil-
drens creative thinking is mainly spontaneous in proces-
sing mode. Spontaneous creative insights seem to be
favored by defocused attention and by the ability to
uninhibit the ow of thoughts, as suggested by studies
showing the positive side effects on creativity of hav-
ing a low inhibitory ability due to specic syndromes
(White & Shah, 2006) or, vice versa, related to giftedness
in creative achievements (Carson, Peterson, & Higgins,
2003). In the present study, a low level of inhibitory
ability, permitting the emergence of loosely connected
associations that are assumed to underlie spontaneous
 270 SCIBINETTI, TOCCI, AND PESCE
creative thoughts, seems to be a major determinant of
original thinking performance.
In both cases of spontaneous and deliberate gener-
ation of creative insights, their expression is considered
conscious and supported by deliberate sustained atten-
tion processes relying on executive function (Dietrich,
2004). The expression of original solutions in the
Bertsch test involves the planning of more complex
motor outputs than the Torrance test. This difference
may be accountable for our nding that to be original
in moving, children required the ability to actively
inhibit the strong tendency toward the production of
more common routines. In fact, motor response plan-
Downloaded by [Alma Mater Studiorum - Universit di Bologna] at 01:08 21 November 2011
ning particularly requires the inhibition of prepotent,
but inappropriate responses, and only to a lesser extent
the manipulation of working memory strategies (Penne-
quin, Sorel, & Fontaine, 2010). Even if this evidence
probably concerns convergent motor responses more
than divergent and creative ones, these ndings suggest
that, at least in children, this may also extend to creative
motor behavior. We can speculate that automatisms in
the motor system, linked to individuals and species sur-
vival, are more pervasive than automatisms in thinking.
This might justify the stronger role played by inhibition
in the planning of creative motor responses as compared
to creative thinking.
Motor creativity performances in the Bertsch test
seem to be largely independent of individual differences
in the development of fundamental ne-motor and
gross-motor skills involved in the four motor creativity
tasks. In fact, the task analysis correlating performance
on creativity tasks requiring specic fundamental motor
skills (e.g., ball and hope tasks in Bertsch test) with the
individual developmental level of such skills as assessed
on noncreative tasks (e.g., manipulative and ball skills
tasks in the M-ABC test) did not show any signicant
association. It is to consider that the total score of motor
impairment obtained with the M-ABC showed all chil-
dren being normally developing and scoring above the
threshold of borderline motor performance. Sternberg
and Lubart (1995) proposed that there may be thresh-
olds for some components of creativity below which
creativity is not possible regardless of the individual
level on the other components. Considering the inter-
play between domain-relevant skills and creativity-
relevant processes (Amabile, 1996), we hypothesize that
the absence of motor developmental impairment may be
a threshold for domain-relevant motor skills over which
childrens level on other components, such as creativity-
relevant processes relying on executive function, may
inuence creative moving. However, the lack of studies
applying the task analysis to identify the creativity
requirements limits the understanding of the relative
importance of different attributes for creativity (Lubart
& Guignard, 2004).
A limitation of the study is represented by the narrow
age range considered. Future research is needed to
explore if there is a close interrelation of developmental
trends of inhibitory functions and motor creativity at
different ages and expertise levels. It might be that with
increasing age and motor expertise, also the role played
by inhibitory and other executive functions changes. For
instance, it is possible that working memory efciency is
less relevant in childhood, as suggested by the nonpre-
dictive value of memory-updating indexes for creative
thinking and moving in this study, and becomes more
relevant in old adulthood, as suggested by a study in
which age-related declines in creative performance were
accounted for by reduced working memory efciency
(Roskos-Ewoldsen, Black, & Mccown, 2008).
Also, the correlationalregressional nature of this
study limits the relevance of the results for applied pur-
poses. Future research should be aimed at assessing
whether motor creativity training may support the
development of inhibition ability. Creativity in complex
motor tasks seems to be sensitive to experience, as well
as to specic strategies, and teaching styles in physical
education and sports training and seems to be charac-
terized by very long retention times (Bournelli &
Mountakis, 2008; Cleland, 1994; Memmert, 2007;
Memmert & Roth, 2007). Also, executive and speci-
cally inhibitory functions can be fruitfully submitted to
educational interventions in normally developing chil-
dren (Rueda, Rothbart, McCandliss, Saccomanno, &
Posner, 2005) and, more interestingly, movement-based
interventions in physical education can benet inhibi-
tory functions in children affected by developmental
coordination disorders (Tsai, 2009). When also con-
sidering children affected by attention decit and hyper-
activity disorders, we suppose that a motor creativity
treatment might support the development of inhibitory
functions that are impaired in this type of disorder
(Fuggetta, 2006). Thus, research addressing the issue
of the trainability of executive and particularly inhibi-
tory functions thorough motor creativity experiences
in childhood should be closely linked to contemporary
theoretical perspectives on abnormal development in
order to obtain relevant practical knowledge for preven-
tion and treatment of disorders.
REFERENCES
Abraham, A., Windmann, S., McKenne, P., & Gunturkun, O. (2007).
Creative thinking in schizophrenia: The role of executive dys-
function and symptom severity. Cognitive Neuropsychiatry, 12,
235258.
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Baer, J., & Kaufman, J. C. (2005). Bridging generality and specicity:
The assessment park theoretical (APT) model of creativity. Roeper
Review, 27, 158163.

Banich, M. T. (2009). Executive functionThe search for an inte-
grated account. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18,
8994.
Bekhtereva, N. P., Danko, S. G., Starchenko, M. G., Pakhomov, S.
V., & Medvedev, S. V. (2001). Study of the brain organization of
creativity: III. Positron-emission tomography data. Human
Physiology, 27, 390397.
Bertsch, J. (1983). Le creativite` motrice. Son evaluation et son optimisa-
tion dans la pedagogie des situations motrices a lecoleManuel de
tests. [Motor creativity. Evaluation and optimization in the peda-
gogy of physical educationTest manual]. Paris: INSEP.
Best, J. R., Miller, P. H., & Jones, L. L. (2009). Executive function
after age 5: Changes and correlates. Developmental Review, 29,
180200.
Bournelli, P., & Mountakis, C. (2008). The development of motor
Downloaded by [Alma Mater Studiorum - Universit di Bologna] at 01:08 21 November 2011
creativity in elementary school children and its retention. Creativity
Research Journal, 20, 7280.
Carson, S. H., Peterson, J. B., & Higgins, D. M. (2003). Decreased
latent inhibition is associated with increased creative achievement
in high-functioning individuals. Personality and Individual Differ-
ences, 85, 499506.
Cleland, F. E. (1994). Young childrens divergent movement ability:
Study II. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 13, 228241.
Delis, D. C., Lansing, A., Houston, W. S., Wetter, S., Han, S. D.,
Jacobson, M., et al. (2007). Creativity lost: The importance of
testing higher-level executive functions in school-age children and
adolescents. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 25, 2940.
Diamond, A. (2000). Close interrelation of motor development and
cognitive development and of the cerebellum and prefrontal cortex.
Child Development, 71, 4456.
Diamond, A. (2002). Normal development of prefrontal cortex
from birth to young adulthood: Cognitive functions, anatomy,
and biochemistry. In D. T. Stuss & R. T. Knight (Eds.), Principles
of frontal lobe function (pp. 466503). New York: Oxford University
Press.
Dietrich, A. (2004). The cognitive neuroscience of creativity. Psycho-
nomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 10111026.
Fink, A., Graif, B., & Neubauer, A. C. (2009). Brain correlates under-
lying creative thinking. EEG alpha activity in professional vs. novice
dancers. Neuroimage, 46, 854862.
Fuggetta, G. P. (2006). Impairment of executive functions in boys with
attention decit=hyperactivity disorder. Child Neuropsychology, 12,
121.
Henderson, S. E., & Sudgen, D. A. (1992). Movement assessment bat-
tery for children. [Italian version: Movement ABCBatteria per la
valutazione motoria del bambino, 2000]. London: Psychological
Corporation.
Huizinga, M., Dolan, C. V., & Van der Molen, M. W. (2006).
Age-related change in executive function: Developmental trends
and a latent variable analysis. Neuropsychologia, 44, 20172036.
Kaufman, J. C., & Baer, J. (2005). The amusement park theory of crea-
tivity. In J. C. Kaufman & J. Baer (Eds.), Creativity across domains:
Faces of the muse (pp. 321328). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Kim, K. H. (2006). Can we trust creativity tests? A review of the Tor-
rance tests of creative thinking (TTCT). Creativity Research Journal,
18, 314.
Konstantinidou, E., Pollatou, E., & Zachopoulou, E. (2005). The
effect of verbal instructions on preschool childrens motor creativity.
Inquiries in Sport and Physical Education, 3, 9097.
Lubart, T., & Guignard, J. H. (2004). The generality-specicity of
creativity: A multivariate approach. In R. J. Sternberg, E. L.
Grigorenko & J. L. Singer (Eds.), Creativity: From potential to
realization (pp. 4356). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
CREATIVE MOVING AND THINKING AND INHIBITION 271
Memmert, D. (2007). Can creativity be improved by an
attention-broadening training program? An exploratory study
focusing on team sports. Creativity Research Journal, 19, 23,
281291.
Memmert, D. (2009). Noticing unexpected objects improves the cre-
ation of creative solutionsInattentional blindness by children
inuences divergent thinking negatively. Creativity Research
Journal, 21, 302304.
Memmert, D., & Roth, K. (2007). The effects of non-specic and
specic concepts on tactical creativity in team ball sports. Journal
of Sports Sciences, 25, 14231432.
Naglieri, J. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2001). Understanding intelligence,
giftedness and creativity using PASS theory. Roeper Review, 23,
151156.
Passolunghi, M. C., & Pazzaglia, F. (2004). Individual differences in
memory updating in relation to arithmetic problem solving.
Learning and Individual Differences, 14, 219230.
Pennequin, V., Sorel, O., & Fontaine, R. (2010). Motor planning
between 4 and 7 years of age: Changes linked to executive functions.
Brain and Cognition, 74, 107111.
Piek, J. P., & Dyck, M. J. (2004). The relationship between motor
coordination, executive functioning and attention in school-aged
children. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 19, 10631076.
Plucker, J., & Beghetto, R. (2004). Why creativity is domain general,
why it looks domain specic, and why the distinction does not
matter. In R. J. Sternberg, E. L. Grigorenko & J. L. Singer
(Eds.), Creativity: From potential to realization (pp. 153167).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Plucker, J., & Zabelina, D. (2009). Creativity and interdisciplinarity:
One creativity or many creativities? ZDMThe International
Journal on Mathematics and Education, 41, 511.
Roskos-Ewoldsen, B., Black, S. R., & Mccown, S. M. (2008). Age-
related changes in creative thinking. Journal of Creative Behavior,
42, 3359.
Rueda, M. R., Rothbart, M. K., McCandliss, B. D., Saccomanno, L.,
& Posner, M. I. (2005). Training, maturation, and genetic inuences
on the development of executive attention. Proceedings of the
national Academy of Sciences of the USA, 102, 1493114936.
Runco, M. A. (1987). The generality of creative performance in gifted
and nongifted children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 31, 1622.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1995). Defying the crowd: Cultivating
creativity in a culture of conformity. New York: Free Press.
Tocci, N., Scibinetti, P., & Zelli, A. (2004). Age and gender differences
in motor creativity among Italian elementary school children.
Journal of Human Movement Studies, 46, 89104.
Torrance, E. P. (1981). Thinking creatively in action and movement.
Bensenville, IL: Scolastic Testing Service.
Torrance, E. P. (1988). Torrance tests of creative thinking. Bensenville,
IL: Scholastic Testing Service.
Torrance, E. P. (1989). Test di pensiero creativo. Firenze, Italy:
Organizzazioni Speciali.
Torrance, E. P., & Ball, O. E. (1984). The Torrance Tests of Creative
Thinking Streamlined (revised) manual, Figural A and B.
Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service, Inc.
Torrents, C., Castaner, M., Dinusova, M., & Anguera, M. T. (2010).
Discovering new ways of moving: observational analysis of motor
creativity while dancing contact improvisation and the inuence of
the partner. Journal of Creative Behaviour, 44, 4561.
Towse, J. N., & McIachlan, A. (1999). An exploration of random
generation among children. British Journal of Developmental
Psychology, 17, 363380.
Towse, J. N., & Neil, D. (1998). Analyzing human number generation
behavior: A Review of methods used and a computer program for
describing performance. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments,
and Computer, 30, 583591.
 272 SCIBINETTI, TOCCI, AND PESCE
Trevlas, E., Matsouka, O., & Zachopoulou, E. (2003). Relationship
between playfulness and motor creativity in preschool children.
Early Child Development and Care, 173, 535543.
Tsai, C. L. (2009). The effectiveness of exercise intervention on inhibi-
tory control in children with developmental coordination disorder:
Using a visuospatial attention paradigm as a model. Research on
Developmental Disabilities, 30, 10681080.
Vandervert, L. R., Schimpf, P. H., & Liu, H. (2007). How working
memory and the cerebellum collaborate to produce creativity and
innovation. Creativity Research Journal, 19, 118.
Downloaded by [Alma Mater Studiorum - Universit di Bologna] at 01:08 21 November 2011
White, H. A., & Shah, P. (2006). Uninhibited imaginations: Creativity
in adults with attention-decit=hyperactivity disorder. Personality
and Individual Differences, 40, 11211131.
Zachopolou, E., & Makri, A. (2005). A developmental perspective of
divergent movement ability in early young children. Early Child
Development and Care, 175, 8595.
Zachopoulou, E., Makri, A., & Pollatou, E. (2009). Evaluation of chil-
drens creativity: Psychometric properties of Torrances Thinking
Creatively in Action and Movement test. Early Child Development
and Care, 179, 317328.