Computers in Human Behavior xxx (2011) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Computers in Human Behavior
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh

Information technology use and creativity: Findings from the Children
and Technology Project
Linda A. Jackson ⇑, Edward A. Witt, Alexander Ivan Games, Hiram E. Fitzgerald, Alexander von Eye,Yong Zhao
Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USAa r t i c l e

i n f oArticle history:
Available online xxxx
Keywords:
Videogames
Creativity
ChildrenTechnology use

a b s t r a c t
This research examined relationships between children’s information technology (IT) use and their creativity. Four types of information technology were considered: computer use, Internet use, videogame
playing and cell phone use. A multidimensional measure of creativity was developed based on Torrance’s(1987, 1995) test of creative thinking. Participants were 491 12-year olds; 53% were female, 34% were
African American and 66% were Caucasian American. Results indicated that videogame playing predictedof all measures of creativity. Regardless of gender or race, greater videogame playing was associated withgreater creativity. Type of videogame (e.g., violent, interpersonal) was unrelated to videogame effects oncreativity. Gender but not race differences were obtained in the amount and type of videogame playing,
but not in creativity. Implications of the ﬁndings for future research to test the causal relationshipbetween videogame playing and creativity and to identify mediator and moderator variables are
discussed.
Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction
Creativity has been deﬁned as a mental process involving thegeneration of new ideas or concepts, or new associations between
existing ideas or concepts. From a scientiﬁc standpoint the products of creative thought are usually considered to have both originality and appropriateness.
Although creativity appears to be a simple concept in the parlance of everyday life, its meaning and measurement have eluded
the scientiﬁc community for decades. In fact it is a very complex
concept that is difﬁcult to deﬁne and measure (Runcho & Albert,
2010). Over one hundred deﬁnitions of creativity exist in the literature, spanning a variety of disciplines (Hocevar & Bachelor, 1989;
Park & Byrnes, 1984; Parkhurst, 1999). Creativity is unique amongscientiﬁc phenomena insofar as there is no single, authoritative
perspective or deﬁnition of creativity.
Given the diversity in conceptualizations of creativity it is no
surprise that there is also diversity in how it is measured. A popular
approach to the measurement of creativity is the psychometricapproach, pioneered by Guilford (1967). Most creativity measuresin use today are based at least in part on Guilford’s theory of creativity. The theory posits that the ability to envision multiple solutions⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 517 353 7207; fax: +1 517 432 2476.
E-mail addresses:
jackso67@msu.edu (L.A. Jackson),wittedwa@msu.edu(E.A. Witt), games@msu.edu (A.I. Games), ﬁtzgerf8@msu.edu (H.E. Fitzgerald),voneye@msu.edu (A. von Eye), zhaoyo@msu.edu (Y. Zhao).

to a problem lies at the core of creativity (Guilford, 1967, 1982).
The Torrance Test of Creativity (Torrance, 1987) is based on
Guilford’s theory and is one of the most reliable and valid measuresof children’s creativity. In this research we used the Torrance Test to
obtain a multidimensional measure of creativity in our 12-year old
participants.
Research on the effects of using information technology has increased exponentially during the Information Age, outpaced onlyby the growth of information technology itself. In the previous century the primary focus was on the effects of computer-based learning on children’s cognitive development (Wartella & Jennings,
2000). This line of research was quickly replaced by research on
Internet effects, ignoring the fact that the computer is the primary
vehicle for delivering the Internet, although the handheld may soontake the lead. The Pew Internet and American Life Project holds
what is probably the most comprehensive set of national (US) survey research on the who, what, where, when and why of Internet
use (e.g., Pew Internet and American Life Project, 2005, 2006, 2007).
Videogames effects have been a popular research topic perhaps
because playing videogames is a popular activity. According to theEntertainment Software Association (2011) 72% of Americanhouseholds play video or computer games. Both ‘‘good news’’and ‘‘bad news’’ have emerged from the research. On the positiveside, videogame playing has been related to visual-spatial skills(Green & Bavelier, 2003, 2006, 2007), skills which may be linked
to performance in mathematics, engineering and science (Subrahmanyam, Smahel, & Greenﬁeld, 2006). One experimental study

0747-5632/$ - see front matter Published by Elsevier Ltd.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.10.006

Please cite this article in press as: Jackson, L. A., et al. Information technology use and creativity: Findings from the Children and Technology Project. Computers in Human Behavior (2011), doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.10.006

2

L.A. Jackson et al. / Computers in Human Behavior xxx (2011) xxx–xxx

suggested a causal relationship between videogame playing andvisual-spatial skill in adults (Green & Bavelier, 2007). A recent
correlational study suggested a positive relationship between
videogame playing and visual-spatial skills in children (Jackson,
von Eye, Fitzgerald, Witt, & Zhao, 2009). On the negative side,
videogame playing has been linked to aggressive cognition andbehavior in children and adults (Anderson, Gentile, & Buckley,2007; Bushman & Anderson, 2002; Gentile & Anderson, 2003;
Gentile, Lynch, Linder, & Walsh, 2004). A handful of studies havedemonstrated a causal relationship (e.g., Anderson et al., 2003).
However, as gaming enthusiasts were quick to point out, the effectsize for the relationship between videogame playing and children’s
aggression is half the effect size for the relationship between
watching violent TV and children’s aggression (Gee, 2005).
Jackson and colleagues summarized the research on the cognitive, social, psychological and physical consequences of Internet
use for children (Jackson, Zhao, Fitzgerald, von Eye, & Harold,
2006) and adolescents (Jackson, 2008). Most of the studies included in these summaries were correlational studies. Whether
using the Internet causes real changes in cognitive, social, psychological and moral thinking and/or behavior remains an unanswered question. Even the much discussed relationship between
Internet use and obesity is likely mediated by other factors (e.g.,creen time versus activity time).
Research has only quite recently turned its attention to cell
phones. The questions addressed vary widely, ranging from ‘‘Does
using a cell phone increase the probability of developing brain cancers?’’ to ‘‘Are cell phones decimating your social life?’’ At this earlystage of studying a rapidly changing technology the only conclusion that can be drawn is that cell phones should not be used whiledriving. They divert attention away from the driving task and use
up cognitive resources needed for that task (Butt & Phillips,
2007; Cell Signs Report: Text Message Statistics, 2008; Nielson Mobile, Neilson Company, NY: NY, retrieved August 3, 2011, fromhttp://www.cellsigns.com; Pew Internet and American Life Project,
2010, 2011).
In this research we took an exploratory approach to examining
relationships between a complex and important concept – creativity, and a variety of information technologies, speciﬁcally, computers, the Internet, videogames and cell phones. Because so little is
known about the causes of creativity, and because so little is
known about the effects of IT use, examining their relationships
is an important ﬁrst step in understanding both. We were particularly interested in the relationship between videogames playing
and creativity because playing videogames has become a core
activity in the lives of today’s children (Entertainment Software
Association (2011) and, most likely, tomorrow’s adults. The average age of videogame players is 37 years old (Entertainment Software Association, 2011).

Internet use, videogame playing and cell phone use. Multiple measures of creativity were develop using Torrance’s (1987, 1995) testof creative thinking.
Surveys were mailed to participants’ parents and returned instamped, pre-addressed envelopes. Participants’ parents also completed surveys and were compensated $25 when both the completed Parent Survey and Child Survey were returned. Parents
who returned surveys were eligible to participant in a rafﬂe for a
grand prize drawing of $500. Response rate was 65%.
2.2. Measures
2.2.1. Creativity
The Torrance Test of Creativity – Figural (Torrance, 1987) was
the basis for constructing a multidimensional measure of creativity
with two objectives in mind. The ﬁrst was to capture the richness
and complexity of the creativity construct. The second was to minimize the contribution of alternative constructs to the creativity
measure. In particular, creativity measures have been criticized
for being saturated with the generalized intelligence factor, ‘‘littleg’’ (e.g., Cooper, 1991; Fleenor & Taylor, 1994; Hocevar & Bachelor,
1989; Sternberg, 2001; Torrance, 1988, 1995; Trefﬁnger, 1985).
Every effort was made to minimize the contribution of little g to
our measures of creativity while acknowledging that any measurerequiring a verbal/written response will to some extent be inﬂuenced by generalized intelligence.
Participants responded to two target stimuli to assess creativity.
The ﬁrst stimulus took the form of an ‘‘egg’’ presented alone on a
blank sheet of paper. Instructions were as follows:
On the following page is a curved shape. Think of a picture or
object that you can draw with this shape as a part of it. Try tothink of a picture that no one else will think of. Keep adding
new ideas to your ﬁrst idea to make it tell as interesting andexciting a story as you can. When you have completed your picture make up a name or title for it and write this in the spaceprovided under your picture. After you have drawn your pictureand given it a title, come back to this page and write a story
about your picture in the space below.
The second stimulus was a picture of an elf-like ﬁgure lying infront of a small pool of water, staring at its reﬂection in the water.
Instructions were as follows:
Look at the picture. Think about what is happening. What can
you tell is happening for sure? What do you need to know tounderstand what is happening, what caused it to happen, andwhat will happen next, as a result? After you have looked at
the picture and thought about these questions then go to thenext page, after the picture.
The next three pages contained the following instructions:

2. Materials and methods
2.1. Participants and procedures
Participants were 491 children, average age 12.34 years old,
who completed surveys containing the creativity measures andthe technology use measures as part of their participation in theChildren and Technology Project (NSF-HSD # 0527064). Child participants and their parents were recruited from 20 middle schools
geographically distributed in the southern lower peninsula ofMichigan. An additional 100 participants were recruited from
YouthVille Detroit, and after-school center for underserved groups
in Detroit. About half (53%) of the participants were female, 34%
were African American and 66% were Caucasian American. Fourtypes of information technology were considered: computer use,

Write out all of the QUESTIONS you can think of about the picture. Ask all the questions you need to ask to know for surewhat is happening. Do not ask questions that can be answered
just by looking at the picture. You can look back at the picture
as much as you want to.
List as many possible CAUSES as you can think of for the activity(what is happening) in the picture. You may use things thatmight have happened just before the things that are happening
in the picture, or you can use things that happened a long time
ago that made the things in the picture happen. Make as manyguesses as you like. Don’t be afraid to guess. You can look backat the picture as much as you want to.
List as many POSSIBILITIES as you can think of for what might
happen next as a result of what is happening in the picture.
You may use things that might happen right afterward, or you

Please cite this article in press as: Jackson, L. A., et al. Information technology use and creativity: Findings from the Children and Technology Project. Computers in Human Behavior (2011), doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.10.006

L.A. Jackson et al. / Computers in Human Behavior xxx (2011) xxx–xxx

can use things that might happen long afterward, in the future.
Make as many guesses as you can. Don’t be afraid to guess. You
can look back at the picture as much as you want to.
2.2.2. Technology use
In a separate section of the Child Survey participants indicatedthe extent of their technology use on a 7-point scale where 1 = notat all, 2 = about once a month, 3 = a few times a month, 4 = a few
times a week, 5 = everyday, but for less than 1 h, 6 = everyday,
for 1–3 h, and 7 = everyday, for more than 3 h. Measures were obtained for computer use, Internet use, videogame playing and cell
phone use. Participants were also asked to indicate their favorite
videogame in the blank space provided.
2.2.3. Socio-demographic characteristics
In the ﬁrst section of the Child Survey participants indicatedtheir gender, race/ethnicity and age. Only those participants who
indicated that their race/ethnicity was African American or Caucasian American are included in the analyses that follow (i.e., 491 of
the 591 child participants). Information about household income
was obtained from the Parent Survey. Parents indicated their total
net annual household income using the following scale: 1 = under$20,000, 2 = $20,000–49,999, 3 = $50,000–79,999, 4 = $80,000–
99,000, 5 = $100,000–149,999, 6 = $150,000–200,000, 7 = over
$200,000.
2.3. Preliminary analyses
2.3.1. Creativity
Children’s open-ended responses to the creativity stimuli (Eggand Elf) were coded by six trained undergraduates supervised bya trained graduate student. Coding was based on the following categories and scales suggested by Torrance (1987, 1988): Egg story
creativity: Overall creativity (1 = not at all creative, 2 = creative,
3 = very creative); Fluency –number of interpretable, meaningful,and relevant ideas generated in response to the stimulus; Flexibility– number of different categories of relevant responses; Originality –rarity or unusualness of responses (1 = not unusual or rare,
2 = unusual and rare, 3 = very unusual and very rare); Elaboration– the degree of detail in the responses (1 = low elaboration,
2 = moderate elaboration, 3 = high elaboration); Mean Number ofWords in the story. Elf story questions creativity: Overall creativity,
ﬂuency, ﬂexibility, originality, elaboration of questions, as operationalized for the Egg Story and Number of questions (non-redundant).
Elf story causes creativity: Overall creativity, ﬂuency, ﬂexibility, originality, elaboration of causes, as operationalized for the Egg Story andNumber of causes (non-redundant). Elf story possibilities creativity:
Overall creativity, ﬂuency, ﬂexibility, originality, elaboration of possibilities, as operationalized for the Egg Story and Number of possibilities (non-redundant).
Composites for each of the measures listed above were formedby averaging the ratings of the six trained undergraduate raters.
Factor analyses (maximum likelihood, varimax rotation, 25 iterations, eigenvalues > 1, factor-item loadings greater than .50 withno split loadings) were used to identify underlying dimensions of
the creativity ratings only (i.e., excluding the number counts which
use a different scale of measurement (1 to unlimited) than the creativity ratings (all use a 1–3 rating scale). Results of the factor analyses suggested four underlying though related dimensions (65.4%of the variance). Items for these dimensions were averaged to form
the following composite measures of creativity used in subsequent
analyses:
Egg story creativity – mean (egg originality, egg elaboration, egg
creativity), a = .94;

3

Elf questions creativity – mean (questions originality, questions
elaboration, questions creativity), a = .88;
Elf causes creativity – mean (causes originality, causes elaboration, causes creativity), a = .93;
Elf possibilities creativity – mean (possibilities originality, possibilities elaboration, possibilities creativity), a = .94.
Also included in subsequent analyses were the average numberof words in the egg story (# EggWords) and the average number ofquestions, causes, and possibilities in responses to the elf stimulus(# QCPElf).
2.3.2. Videogame typeOpen-ended response to the request for the name of their favorite videogame resulted in 205 unique videogames from the 491
children. To determine whether only certain types of videogames
were related to creativity we categorized each of the 205 videogames as follows:First, using game descriptions provided by Wikipedia and other
online gaming sources we attempted to categorize the 205 favorite
games into the seven widely accepted game genres. This effort
proved unsuccessful. Most of the videogames required at least
two genres to describe game play. More importantly, an alternative
categorization scheme might better capture the dimensions of children’s game play that are important to predicting children’s outcomes of game play, such as creativity. Thus, a child’s favorite
videogame was placed into one of the following mutually exclusive
categories:(1) Violent videogames. Games in this category include ﬁrst-person shooter games and games in which violence is at thecore of game play. Games named by participants that fellin this category are Zelda and Super Smash Brothers.
(2) Action–adventure videogames. Games in this category typically involve role-playing, strategy and problem-solving to‘‘win’’ the game. Examples of games in this category forour participants are Half-Life 2 and Star Wars.
(3) Racing/driving videogames. Driving and race simulation
games fall into this category. Examples are Need for Speedand Big Mutha Truckers II.
(4) Sports videogames. Games in this category include all types ofsports/athletic games. Among our participants the mostpopular games in this category were NBA basketball and
NFL football.
(5) Interpersonal videogames. Games that involve interpersonal
relationships or caring for others, humans or non-humans,
were included in the category. Examples from our participant are Sims and Animal Crossing.
(6) Other videogames. Games that did not ﬁt into any or the preceding ﬁve categories were placed in this category. Examples
are Parkalline and Spider Solitaire.
3. Results
3.1. Relationships between creativity and technology use
Correlations between the six measures of creativity and fourmeasures of technology use are presented in Table 1. To minimize
the likelihood of Type 1 errors a signiﬁcance level of .01 wasadopted. Even with this more stringent criterion, correlations between videogame playing and every measure of creativity weresigniﬁcant and positive. Children who played videogames more
scored higher on Egg story creativity, Elf questions creativity, Elf
causes creativity, Elf possibilities creativity, # Egg words and #QCP Elf words. No other technology use measure was related toPlease cite this article in press as: Jackson, L. A., et al. Information technology use and creativity: Findings from the Children and Technology Project. Computers in Human Behavior (2011), doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.10.006

4

L.A. Jackson et al. / Computers in Human Behavior xxx (2011) xxx–xxx

Table 1
Correlations between creativity and technology use.

1. Egg story creativity
2. Elf questions creativity
3. Elf causes creativity
4. Elf possibilities creativity
5. # words Egg story
6. # QCP elf stories
7. How often do you use a computer?
8. How often do you use the Internet?
9. How often do you play videogames?
10. How often do you use a cell phone?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1
.65*
.52*
.58*
.45*
.35*
.12
.02
.59*
.12

1
.72*
.59*
.38*
.44*
.13
.05
.40*
.06

1
.71*
.47*
.49*
.06
.00
.44*
.10

1
.42*
.33*
.14
.08
.49*
.09

1
.55*
.15
.10
.47*
.09

1
.10
.10
.27*
.11

1
.66*
.20*
.08

1
.04
.13

1

10

.06

1

Note. Ns for the analyses ranged from 273 to 391.
*
p < .01.

Table 2
Predicting creativity from technology use.
Egg story creativity
Computer use
Internet use
Videogame playing
Cell phone use
Adjusted R2

.02
.01
.50*
.08
.26*

Elf questions creativity
.02
.03
.35*
.02
.16*

Elf causes creativity
.05
.04
.41*
.07
.16*

Elf Possibilities creativity# words Egg story

.01
.09
.43*
.06
.19*

#QCP Elf story

.01
.11
.39*
.07
.18*

.03
.13
.23*
.11
.06

Note. N = 391. Values are standardized beta coefﬁcients.
p < .01.

*

creativity. Speciﬁcally, computer use, Internet use and cell phone
use were unrelated to any measure of creativity. As expected, creativity measures were related to each other. Computer use was related to Internet use and videogame playing. Cell phone use wasrelated to Internet use only.
Next we examined relationships between creativity and sociodemographic characteristics to determine whether correlations between videogame playing and creativity might be attributable tocorrelations between these measures and participants’ gender,
race/ethnicity, age or family income. Gender was unrelated toany measure of creativity. Race was related to income (r = .33),
and to one measure of creativity, Elf questions creativity (r = .14,
p < .05). African American children came from lower income families than did Caucasian American children. Income was also related
to Elf questions creativity (r = .20. p < .01); higher incomes wereassociated with greater creativity.
3.2. Predicting creativity from technology use
Hierarchical regression analyses were used to predict each measure of creativity from each type of technology use. Race and income were controlled (i.e., entered in Step 1) only for thecreativity measure that was related to these socio-demographic
characteristics (i.e., Elf questions creativity). Results are presented
in Table 2.
Videogame playing was the sole predictor of Egg story creativity. Elf causes creativity, Elf possibilities creativity, # words in egg
story, # QCP in response to the elf stimulus. Videogame playing topredicted Elf questions creativity even after controlling for the effects of income (std b = .22, p < .01). Moreover, the race effect on
this measure was reduced to non-signiﬁcance when income wascontrolled (p > .10, ns).
To strengthen the inference that videogame playing is a unique
predictor of creativity, regression analyses were used to examine
the predictive ability of the four socio-demographic characteristics
for each measure of creativity. None of the regression equations
was signiﬁcant at the more stringent level of p < .01. Thus, gender,
race/ethnicity, age and family household income did not predictthe creativity of our 12 year-old participants, regardless of how
creativity was measured. Family household income did predict creativity but only two of the six measures – Egg story creativity (stdb = .12) and questions about the Elf story (std b = .15).

3.3. Creativity and videogame type
Correlations between creativity and each of the six types of videogames are presented in Table 3.
All types of videogames were strongly related to all measures ofcreativity except Racing/Driving games, which were related only to
two of the six measures of creativity: Elf possibilities and numberof words in the Egg story. Thus, regardless of the type of videogamethat children played, more play was associated with greater
creativity.
We also examined gender and race differences in type of favorite videogame. The gender effect was signiﬁcant, v2(5) = 75.96,
p < .001, but the race effect was not, v2(5) = 8.56, p < .128.
Inspection of the frequencies in Table 4 indicates that males
were more likely than females to play violent videogames andsports videogames, whereas females were more likely than males
to play interpersonal games or games that did not ﬁt into any ofTable 3
Correlations between creativity and type of videogame.
Videogame type

All

1

2

3

4

5

6

N
1. Egg story creativity
2. Elf questions creativity
3. Elf causes creativity
4. Elf possibilities creativity
5. # words Egg story
6. # QCP elf stories

395
.65*
.46*
.49*
.51*
.51*
.33*

59
.64*
.28
.39*
33*
48*
.30

50
.75*
.46*
.49*
.68*
.54*
.30

21
.28
.17
.35
.45
.44
.09

39
.44*
.42*
.43*
.36
.49*
.28

40
.78*
.74*
.65*
.70*
.52*
.40*

40
.55*
.46*
.51*
.40*
.63*
.38

Note. N = sample size. For videogame type, 1 – violent videogames, 2 – action/adventure videogames, 3 – racing/driving videogames, 4 – sports videogames, 5 –interpersonal videogames, 6 – other videogames.
p < .05.
*
p < .01.

Please cite this article in press as: Jackson, L. A., et al. Information technology use and creativity: Findings from the Children and Technology Project. Computers in Human Behavior (2011), doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.10.006

5

L.A. Jackson et al. / Computers in Human Behavior xxx (2011) xxx–xxx
Table 4
Type of videogame by gender and race.
Videogame type

1

2

3

4

5

6

N
Males
Females
African American
Caucasian American

87 (22%)60 (28%)27 (15%)24 (20%)63 (23%)78 (20%)41 (19%)37 (15%)24 (20%)54 (20%)41 (10%)22 (10%)19 (10%)10 (8%)
31 (11%)78 (20%)63 (30%)15 (8%)
34 (28%)44 (16%)57 (14%)9 (4%)
45 (25%)13 (11%)41 (15%)54 (14%)16 (8%)
41 (22%)16 (13%)41 (14%)Note. N = sample size. Values are frequencies and percentages for each gender/race category. For videogame type, 1 – violent videogames, 2 – action/adventure videogames, 3– racing/driving videogames, 4 – sports videogames, 5 – interpersonal videogames, 6 – other videogames. Gender: v2(5) = 75.96, p < .001. Race: v2(5) = 8.56, p < .13.

the videogame categories. Males and females were equally likely toplay strategy videogames and racing/driving videogames. Also evident from Table 4 is that racing/driving videogames were the least
popular games in this sample of 12-year old children.
4. Discussion
Using a sample of almost 500, 12 year-old children we foundthat videogame playing was related to multiple dimensions of creativity, regardless of the type of videogame played. Computer use,
Internet use and cell phone use were unrelated to any measure ofcreativity. Despite the relationship between gender and videogame
playing (Gentile, 2009; Jackson, 2008), with males playing videogames more than do females, there was no relationship between
gender and creativity. Nor was there a relationship between raceand creativity.
Decades of research have been devoted to developing an appropriate conceptualization of creativity and an appropriate instrument to measure it. In this research we used one of the mostreliable and valid measures of creativity in children, the Torrance
Test of Creativity (Torrance, 1962). In the tradition of Guilford(1982), Torrance (1987) operationalized creativity as consistingof both the number and nature of descriptions of ambiguous stimuli, like the Egg and Elf used in our research. Reliable coding of children’s open-ended responses to these stimuli was possible, andresulted in the identiﬁcation of multiple dimensions of creativity,
every one of which was related to videogame playing, and noneof which was related to computer use, Internet use or cell phoneuse. Children who played videogames more were more creative,by every measure, than children who played them less, regardlessof gender or race.
In addition to measuring the amount of videogame playing thatchildren engaged in we also categorized their favorite videogame
into 1 of 6 mutually exclusive categories. Gender, but not race,
was related to which category of videogame was the child’s favorite. Males were more likely than females to indicate that violent
videogames and sports videogames were their favorites. Females
were more likely than males to indicate that games involving interaction with others (human or non-human) and games that could
not be categorized were their favorites. There was no gender difference in preferences for strategy videogames or racing/driving videogames. And there were no race differences in videogame
preferences.
It is important to point out that our research is correlational andtherefore cannot establish cause-effect relationships. Thus, we cannot conclude that being creative causes children to play videogames, perhaps because videogame playing satisﬁes somecreative need. Nor can we say that playing videogames causes children to be creativity, perhaps because of the rich and colorful visual
world of videogames, their rapidly changing scenes, and the need tohold multiple images in mind simultaneously while playing.
Technology aside, research on the correlates of creativity is still
incomplete. Some studies have focused on cognitive measures like
intelligence. (e.g., Simonton, 2004). Others have focused on

personality characteristics like venturesomeness (Hall & MacKinnin,1969). Many studies of creativity use participants who are selected
because they are assumed to be above average in creativity (e.g., artists, authors, architects, dancers; e.g., Fink, Graif, & Neubauer,2009).
In an effort to integrate the diverse set of ﬁndings Sternberg(2003) suggested that there are ﬁve components of creativity: (1)Expertise: a well-developed base of knowledge. (2) Imaginative
thinking skills: the ability to see things in novel ways, to recognize
patterns, to make connections. (3) A venturesome personality:
seeks new experiences, tolerates ambiguity and risk, perseveres inovercoming obstacles. (4) Intrinsic motivation: driven more byinterest, satisfaction, and challenge than by external factors. (5)Creative environment: sparks, supports and reﬁnes ideas. Creativity
is related to intelligence only up to the average level of intelligence.
Beyond average intelligence other factors, like those identiﬁed by
Sternberg (2003), determine the level of creativity. A scholar of creativity suggested the following deﬁnition of the term:
If I were to summarize what is most generally characteristic of
the creative [individual] as we have seen him (sic), it is his highlevel of effective intelligence, his openness to experience, his
freedom from petty constraints, and impoverishing inhibitions,his aesthetic sensitivity, his cognitive ﬂexibility, his independence of thought and action, his high level of energy, hisunquestioning commitment to creative endeavor, and his
unceasing striving for creative solutions to the ever more difﬁcult . . . problems he constantly sets for himself
MacKinnon, D. W. (1978, p. 3)
Does this description ﬁt the typical videogamer? Consider thestatistics. On average, videogamers are in their mid-30s, male(60%), and play 18 h a week. They tend to be overweight, introverted
and susceptible to mood disorders, mainly depression. Nowhere indescriptions of a typical videogamer is the word ‘‘creative’’. On theother hand, research suggests a relationship between videogame
playing and computation thinking (Games, 2010; Gee, 2005). Computation thinking is deﬁned as a broad range of mental tools and concepts from computer science that help people solve problems, design
systems, understand human behavior, and engage computers to assist in automating a wide range of intellectual processes (National
Research Council, 2010). Like creativity, computational thinking
has been difﬁcult to operationalize (Wing, 2009). But we can speculate that computational thinking is related to creativity, and thattogether they facilitate interest and performance in the virtual world– the world of videogames. The effects of computational thinking
and creativity on videogame playing may be additive. Alternatively,
one may serve as a mediator of the other’s effects. Only additional
research which has carefully operationalized both creativity andcomputational thinking can address this issue.
To the best of our knowledge this is the ﬁrst empirical demonstration of a relationship between technology use and creativity.
Our ﬁndings raise a number of new questions for future research.
First, are these results generalizable across a range of ages, races,
and family income levels? Does the relationship between

Please cite this article in press as: Jackson, L. A., et al. Information technology use and creativity: Findings from the Children and Technology Project. Computers in Human Behavior (2011), doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.10.006

6

L.A. Jackson et al. / Computers in Human Behavior xxx (2011) xxx–xxx

videogame playing and creativity transcend the boundaries of language and culture? Would a different videogame categorization
scheme than the one used in this research produce similar results?
Would a different measure of creativity produce similar results?
If future research establishes that videogame playing is causally
related to creativity then yet another set of research questions
emerge. First, what is it about videogame playing that contributes
to creativity? Is it the opportunity to experience vastly different visual environments in rapid succession that contributes to creativity? Is there something inherent in the hand-eye coordination
required to play videogames that is responsible for its relationshipto creativity? Or is the cognitive stimulation produced by playing
videogames responsible for this relationship? On the practical side,
can videogame designers use this new knowledge to create videogames that increase creativity?
5. Conclusions
Results of our research indicate that there is a relationship between videogame playing and creativity in 12-year old children.
No other type of information technology showed any relationships,
regardless of how creativity was measured. There were no genderdifferences in creativity despite gender differences in videogame
playing. Nor were there race difference in creativity or videogame
playing although there were race and gender differences in the useof other types of information technologies. For example African
American males were least likely to use cell phones whereas African American females used cell phone more than any otherrace  gender group. The next logical step for future research is
to determine if the relationship between videogame playing andcreativity is causal and, if so, in what direction. Learning that videogame playing contributes to creativity should motivate gamedesigners to ﬁrst identify the aspects of videogame activity are
responsible for these effects. Once identiﬁed then videogames
can be designed to optimize the development of creativity while
retaining their entertainment values such that a new generationof edutaining video games will blur the distinction between education and entertainment,
Acknowledgements
We thank the National Science Foundation for providing grantsupport for this project (NSF-HSD # 0567064). Special thanks go
to the Program Chair, Michael Gorman, for his continuing support.
Thanks also go to the six undergraduates who spent a summer coding the creativity data. They are Robert Sancrainte, Tehreem Nayyar, Nicole Ghersi, Kristen Ghersi, Amber Brooks and JadeJohnson. Project website: http://www.msu.edu/user/jackso67/CT/
children/.
References
Anderson, C. A., Gentile, D. A., & Buckley, K. E. (2007). Violent video game effects onchildren and adolescents: Theory, research and public policy. New York: Oxford
University.
Anderson, C. A., Berkowitz, L., Donnerstein, E., Huesmann, L. R., Johnson, J. D., Linz,
D., et al. (2003). The inﬂuence of media on youth. Psychological Science in the
Public Interest, 4, 81–110.
Bushman, B., & Anderson, C. (2002). Violent video games and hostile expectations: A
test of the general aggression model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
28, 1679–1686.
Butt, S., & Phillips, J. G. (2007). Personality and self-reported cell phone use.
Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 346–360.
CellSigns Report: Text Message Statistics (2008), Nielson mobile, Neilson Company,
NY. <http://www.cellsigns.com> Retrieved 11.07.09.
Cooper, E. (1991). A critique of six measures for assessing creativity. Journal of
Creative Behavior, 25, 194–204.
Entertainment Software Association (2011). 2011 Sales, demographics and usage
data. Essential facts about the computer and videogame industry. <http://
www.theesa.com/facts/pdfs/ESA_EF_2011.pdf> Retrieved 24.09.11.

Fleenor, J. W., & Taylor, S. (1994). Construct validity of three self report measures ofcreativity. Creativity Research Journal, 5, 464–470.
Fink, A. I., Graif, B., & Neubauer, A. C. (2009). Brain correlates underlying creative
thinking: EEG alpha activity in professional vs. novice dancers. NeuroImage, 46,
854–862.
Games, I. A. (2010). Bug or feature: The role of gamestar mechanic’s material dialog
on the metacognitive design strategies of players. E-Learning and Digital Media,
7, 49–66.
Gee, H. (2005). What videogames have to teach us about learning and literacy. New
York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gentile, D. (2009). Pathological video game use among youth 8 to 18: A national
study. Psychological Science, 20, 594–602.
Gentile, D. A., & Anderson, C. A. (2003).Violent videogame: The newest media
violence hazard. In D. A. Gentile. (Ed.), Media violence and children. Advances inapplied developmental psychology. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishing.
Green, C. S., & Bavelier, D. (2003). Action videogames modify visual attention.
Nature, 423, 534–537.
Green, C. S., & Bavelier, D. (2006). Effects of video game playing on the spatial
distribution of visual selective attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Human Perception and Performance, 32, 465–478.
Green, C. S., & Bavelier, D. (2007). Action video experience alters the spatial
resolution of vision. Psychological Science, 18, 88–94.
Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Guilford, J. P. (1982). The structure of intellect. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Hall, Wallace B., & MacKinnin, Donald W. (1969). Personality inventory
correlates of creativity among architects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53,
322–326.
Hocevar, D., & Bachelor, P. (1989). A taxonomy and critique of measurements usedin the study of creativity. In J. A. Glover, R. R. Ronning, & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.),
Handbook of creativity (pp. 53–76). New York: Plenum.
Jackson, L. A. (2008). Adolescents and the Internet. In D. Romer & P. Jamieson (Eds.),
The changing portrayal of American youth in popular media (pp. 377–410).
Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania, New York,
Oxford University Press.
Jackson, L. A., von Eye, A., Fitzgerald, H. E., Witt, E. A., & Zhao, Y (2009). Videogame
playing, cell phone use and academic performance: Some good news. In
Proceedings of the international association for the development of information
systems: IADIS international conference e-society 2009, Barcelona, Spain,
February 25–28. Outstanding paper award.
Jackson, L. A., Zhao, Y., Fitzgerald, H. E., von Eye, A., & Harold, R. (2006). The impact
of information technology (IT) use on children’s cognitive, social, psychologicaland moral development. In K. Morgan, C. A. Brebbia, & J. M. Spector (Eds.),
WWW: The internet society II: Advances in education, commerce and governance(pp. 23–32). Southampton, UK: WIT Press.
MacKinnon, D. W. (1978). In Search of human effectiveness: Identifying anddeveloping creativity. Creative Education Foundation.
MacKinnon, D. W. (1978b). In search of human effectiveness: Identifying anddeveloping in children: Psychoeducational theory, research and best practices.
NY: Springer.
National Research Council (2010). Report of a workshop on pedagogical aspects ofcomputational thinking. February 4–5, Washington, DC.
Park, B. N., & Byrnes, P. (1984). Toward objectifying the measurement of creativity.
Roeper Review, 6, 216–218.
Parkhurst, H. B. (1999). Confusion, lack of consensus, and the deﬁnition of creativity
as a construct. Journal of Creative Behavior, 33, 1–21.
Pew Internet and American Life Project (2005). Digital divisions. <http://
www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Digital_Divisions_Oct_5_2005.pdf> Retrieved
08.01.08.
Pew Internet and American Life Project (2006). Internet evolution, internet
penetration and impact. <http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Internet_
Impact.pdf> Retrieved 22.02.08.
Pew Internet and American Family Life (2007). Teens and the internet. ﬁndings
submitted to the house subcommittee on telecommunications and the internet.
<http://www.pewinternet.org/ppt/Pew%20Internet%20ﬁndings%20%20teens%20and%20the%20internet%20-%20ﬁnal.pdf> Retrieved 23.03.08.
Pew Internet and American Life Project (2010). Assessing the cell phone challenge.
<http://www.pewinternet.org/Assessing-the-cell-phone-challenge.htm>
Retrieved 10.02.11.
Pew Internet and American Family Life (2011). Assessing the cell phone challenge.
<http://pewinternet.org/topics/Mobile.aspx> Retrieved 23.08.11.
Runcho, M. A., & Albert, R. S. (2010). Creativity research. In J. C. Kaufman & R. J.
Sternberg (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity. NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Simonton, D. K. (2004). Creativity in science: Chance, logic, genius and zeitgeist. NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R. J. (2001). What is the common thread of creativity? Its dialectical
relation to intelligence and wisdom. American Psychologist, 56, 360–362.
Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Creative thinking in the classroom. Scandinavian Journal of
Educational Research, 47, 325–338.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects andparadigms. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Subrahmanyam, K., Smahel, D., & Greenﬁeld, P. (2006). Connecting developmental
constructions to the Internet: Identity presentation and sexual exploration in
online teen chat rooms. Developmental Psychology, Special Section: Children,
Adolescents, and the Internet, 42, 395–406.

Please cite this article in press as: Jackson, L. A., et al. Information technology use and creativity: Findings from the Children and Technology Project. Computers in Human Behavior (2011), doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.10.006

L.A. Jackson et al. / Computers in Human Behavior xxx (2011) xxx–xxx
Torrance, E. P. (1987). Torrance tests of creative thinking. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic
Testing.
Torrance, E. P. (1995). Insights about creativity: Questioned, rejected, ridiculed,
ignored. Educational Psychology Review, 7, 313–322.
Trefﬁnger, D. J. (1985). Review of the Torrance tests for creative thinking. In J.
Mitchell (Ed.), Ninth mental measurements yearbook (pp. 1633–1634). Lincoln,
NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurement.

7

Wartella, E. A., & Jennings, N. (2000). Children and computers: New technology, oldconcerns. In The future of children: Children and computer technology, 10, Fall/
Winter 2000. <http://futureofchildren.org/futureofchildren/publications/docs/
10_02_01.pdfoday’s> Retrieved 24.08.08.

Please cite this article in press as: Jackson, L. A., et al. Information technology use and creativity: Findings from the Children and Technology Project. Computers in Human Behavior (2011), doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.10.006