Introduction to the Special Issue: Divergent Thinking

This issue of the Creativity Research Journal (CRJ) focuses on divergent thinking. It complements several recent issues of CRJ, including the special issue that was devoted to E. Paul Torrance (Kaufman & Baer, 2006) and the issue that honored the 50th anniversary of J. P. Guilford’s (1950) seminal address to the American Psychological Association (Runco & Plucker, 2000–2001). Although there is a clear focus, this special issue also presents various perspectives on divergent thinking. This variation is entirely consistent with the mission of the CRJ. It is, after all, an interdisciplinary journal, and the topic is itself quite complicated. Creativity has been called a complex, a syndrome, and most recently, a symphony. The last of these may be entirely metaphorical, but it does capture the idea of a “magic synthesis” (Arieti, 1976) quite well. Creative things often do seem to exceed the sum of the individual contributions, and as is the case for a symphony, there is pleasing “blend of inputs. ” Blend of inputs does not capture the magic of creativity, which is precisely the reason that symphony may be the best descriptor. Several of the articles in this issue examine divergent thinking tests and divergent thinking test scores. Kim, for example, investigates the factor structure of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT). She confirmes the existence of two factors. Tacher and Readdick also use the TTCT, and demonstrate that certain indicators (including flexibility) are associated with certain signs of aggression. Two articles deal with domain-specific knowledge. Runco, Dow, and Smith, for instance, examine the possibility that divergent thinking is influenced by memory, information, and experience. Their results have clear implications for our understanding of domain specificity. Sak and Maker also find relations with domain knowledge, but report that years of schooling were also very critical. They explore educational and enhancement implications. Enhancement is the focus of the next three articles. In the first, Brophy examines divergent thinking in the context of the Creative Problem Solving model (CPS). Benedek, Fink, and Neubauer use a computer training enhancement technique to enhance ideation. In the third article, Garaigordobil shows that a 2-week program emphasizing play improved the TTCT verbal scores of children. Other articles in this issue have other foci but say something about divergent thinking. Russ and Schafer, for instance, examine affect in play and memory in young children. They report that negative affect in play is significantly related to all indexes of divergent thinking; affect in memory descriptions was as well. Zha, Walczyk, Griffith-Ross, Tobacyk, and Walczyk uncover differences between American and Chinese graduate students in terms of scores on a measure of divergent thinking. They also confirm that Americans tend toward greater individualism and that the Chinese lean toward collectivism. The last two of the final three articles help to put divergent thinking into the larger context. In first of these articles, Dailey and Mumford demonstrate that there are several sources of error when judging ideas. Some lead to overestimations and some to underestimations. Note here that the focus of their work is on ideas, not necessarily divergent thinking. This is the best way to view the research on divergent thinking: It contributes Creativity Research Journal 2006, Vol. 18, No. 3, 249–250 Copyright © 2006 by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.