Concepts, Conceptual Abilities, Intelligence And Creativity

Abstract

The main issue of this empirical research was to discover the correlation of creativity indicators, conceptual structures, intelligence of students with different levels of conceptual abilities (semantic, categorical and generative abilities). For the purpose of this study, a complex design including assessment of conceptual structures (‘concepts’), different techniques of assessment of creativity (TTCT), intelligence (SPM) and conceptual abilities was used. Participants of the experiment were four hundred eight Russian students of nine humanitarian departments (71. 7% female and 28. 3 % male) aged 18–23 (mean 19.3 ± 1.05). The results show a close relationship of conceptual abilities with indicators of psychometric intelligence, conceptual structures ('concepts') and creativity, but the measure of the intensity of intelligence, conceptual structures ('concepts') and creativity varies depending on the degree of formation of conceptual abilities: the higher is the level of conceptual abilities, the higher is the level of creativity, conceptual structures (‘concepts’) and intelligence. The finding of this research may be useful for solving the problem of human mental resources increasing through the development of conceptual thinking.

Keywords: Conceptual (SemanticCategoricalGenerative) abilitiesConceptual Structures (concepts)IntelligenceCreativity

Introduction

The problem of correlation between creativity and psychometric intelligence is one of the controversial in modern psychology. Some studies claim that intelligence and creativity are factors independent of each other ( Ponomaryov, 1999; Eysenck, 1985; Gruber, 1982; Guilford, 1967), in other (e.g., in theory intellectual thresholds of Torrance (1992)) it is noted that the ratio of intelligence and creativity varies depending on the level of intellectual development (IQ ≤ 115-120 intelligence and creativity form a single factor).

A highly controversial situation has developed in the psychology of abilities: on the one hand, a number of studies noted the key role of conceptual thinking in the intellectual development of personality ( Vygotsky, 1982; Vekker, 1976; Yasyukova, 2005; Harvey, Hunt, Schroder, 1961; Li, 1996; Sattler , 1988 and others.), on the other hand, conceptual abilities are not actually presented in modern models of intellectual abilities (in particular, in the catalogue of intellectual abilities within the framework of the intellectual abilities in the SNA theory Cattell, Horne, and Carroll among more than 80 abilities are described only five conceptual ones) .

The theory of certain mental structures (multidimensional representative cognitive structures in long-term memory) that underlie human psychological development including the development of intelligence, competence and creativity ( Vekker, 1981; Kholodnaya, 2002; Chuprikova, 2007; Volkova, 2013) attracts a lot of attention nowadays. Furthermore, there is a great number of studies devoted to the peculiarities of the organization and formation of mental structures ("cognitive maps" (Tolman, 1948), "representation" ( Chuprikova, 2007), "mental experience", "concept" ( Kholodnaya, 2012) "core structure" ( Sergienko, 2005).

A brief analysis of the literature sources shows that a key role in the distinguishing the relationship between intelligence and creativity and can play conceptual abilities. Before proceeding to the description of the results, it is necessary to identify the main constructs used in the study. Traditionally, general abilities include intelligence, creativity and learning.

Based on research Druzhinin ( 1998), considering the psyche as a single system, processing information, intelligence can be defined as the ability to apply knowledge, creativity as the ability to transform knowledge and learning as the ability to acquire knowledge. In various studies, conceptual abilities are presented as “semantic and symbolic intelligence” (JP Guilford), “the ability to do abstract thinking” (J. Sattler), “conceptual intelligence” (Li), “generative thinking” (Ward, Sifons), “conceptual thinking” (Vygotsky; Vekker).

Following types of conceptual abilities are distinguished:

• semantic abilities (assimilation, storage and actualization of the content of verbal signs);

• categorical abilities (voluntary and involuntary) (selection and operation with categorical signs of different degrees of generalization);

• generative abilities (generation of new mental contents).

In recent years, some studies began to appear in the field of intelligence psychology, which raises questions about the internal structure of the conceptual structures ( Chuprikova, 2011; Volkova, 2016; Volkova, Ten, 2014). Nevertheless, it is essential to distinguish the study of the cognitive structure of the concept as a mental formation "inside" conceptual experience of the individual subject (field of psychological research) from studying the content of the concept as a unit objectively existing cultural and historical knowledge (the sphere of cognitive linguistics research).

From a psychological point of view, concepts are ‘substratum’ of all mentioned types of conceptual abilities, a high level of formation of which is the basis of human intelligence ( Vekker, 1981). Therefore, the semantics of the concept as a mental formation is not identical to the semantics of the word as a linguistic phenomenon and the more semantic concepts as a logical phenomenon. At the same time there were some studies that reveal new and interesting facts about the nature of conceptual abilities: the phenomenon of "creative categorization» ( Ranjan, Srinivasan, 2010), representation in the structure of categories and concepts of subjective elements, in particular, bodily and sensory-emotional experience ( Barsalou, 1999; Lakoff, 2011), the phenomenon of generative thinking ( Ward & Sifons, 1997), etc.

Volkova ( 2011) defines the concept as a model of mental reflection, the highest level of organization of mental structures that defines the creative productivity. Her research has shown that the emergence of new ideas is associated with the formation of a detailed level of concepts.

Highly differentiated and integrated conceptual structures, corresponding to the object of professional activity, are essential basis for the manifestation of creativity in a particular field of professional activity. These structures are a systemic factor that integrates the properties of the creative person ( Volkova, 2016).

Problem Statement

One of the key directions in the study of human nature is the search for an answer to the question of the mechanisms of reasonableness as the basis for effective cognitive activity and constructive social life of people.

Many researchers have recognized the special role of conceptual abilities in the structure of intelligence, considering the ability to conceptual reflection as the highest stage of intellectual development, providing the possibility of conscious (arbitrary) regulation of activity. A prominent Russian scientist Vygotsky ( 1982) that conceptual abilities enable people to understand communication, relationship, interdependence hidden behind the surface of the visible phenomena, and therefore, to comprehend the laws that govern reality.

In addition, conceptual structures (‘concepts’) are a means of streamlining the perceived world using a “grid” of categorical and logical relations, i.e., it is an intellectual tool that helps to cope with the chaos of empirical impressions and to organize effective behaviour. Further, conceptual experience is a prerequisite for the socialization of individual intelligence, which creates conditions for a subtler understanding of other people and situations of social interaction. Finally, conceptual abilities are the basis of self-knowledge (knowledge of inner reality, the world of one's own experiences).

Thus, conceptual abilities (features of the organization of individual conceptual experience) provide an opportunity for a qualitatively new form of awareness (understanding) of what is happening — the objective world, other people, and oneself.

Research Questions

How do conceptual abilities change with creativity, conceptual structures (‘concepts’) and intelligence?

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this empirical research is to study the relationship between psychometric intelligence, conceptual structures (‘concepts’) and creativity in different levels of conceptual abilities.

Research Methods

Participants

Four hundred eight respondents of nine different humanitarian departments ( «Psychology Department» (N = 97), «Primary Education Department» (N = 110), «Speech Therapy Department» (N = 22) «Defectology Department» (N = 15), «Foreign Languages Department» (N = 47), «History and Social Studies Department» (N = 32), «Management Department» (N = 23), «Social Services Department» (N = 11), «Land Registry Department» (N = 51)) from Kostroma, Moscow, Penza, Perm and Taganrog aged 18 to 24 years (19.32 ± 1.48) took part in our research, among them were 79.2% female students.

See Full Size >

Findings

The results of a comparative analysis of the ratio of IQ, conceptual structures (concepts), creativity and conceptual abilities indicate that:

• at a high level of conceptual abilities respondents demonstrate not only high level of IQ and conceptual structures (concepts) but also creativity;

• at the average level of conceptual abilities respondents demonstrate average indicators of IQ, creativity, conceptual structures (concepts) and creativity;

• at a low level of conceptual abilities — low indices of IQ, conceptual structures (concepts) and creativity.

Thus, the high level of formation of conceptual abilities implies higher indices of IQ, conceptual structures (concepts) and creativity.

Conclusion

The data of comparative analysis between the indicators of intelligence, conceptual structures (concepts) and creativity at different levels of conceptual abilities allows us to assume the existence of not only the upper but also the lower "conceptual threshold", by analogy with the intellectual threshold of E.P. Torrence.

References

1. Ball, O. E., & Torrance, E. P. (1992). Torrance Test of Creative Thinking. Scholastic Testing Service, Inc., Illinois.
2. Barsalou, L.W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577-660. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X99002149
3. Carroll, J.B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511571312
4. Carroll, J.B. (1997). The three-stratum theory of cognitive abilities. In D.P. Flanagan, J.L. Genshaft, & P.L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (pp. 122-130). New York: The Guilford Press.
5. Cattell R.B. (1971). Abilities: their structure, growth and action. – Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, (p.583).
6. Chuprikova N.I. (2007). Umstvennoe razvitie. Printsip differentsiatsii [Intellectual development: Principle of differentiation]. Saint Petersburg: Piter, (p.448).
7. Chuprikova N.I. (ed.) (2011). Differentsionno-integratsionnaya teoriya razvitiya [Differential-integral theory of development]. Moscow: Yazyki slavyanskikh kul’tur (p. 496).
8. Druzhinin, V. N. (1998). Intelligence and productivity activities: model of intellectual range. Psikhologicheskij zhurnal. 19(2), 61-70. (in Russian)
9. Eysenck, H.J. (1979). The structure and measurement of intelligence. New York, NY: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-67075-6
10. Eysenck, H. J. & Barrett, P. (1985) Psychophysiology and the measurement of intelligence. In C.R. Reynolds, & V.L. Willson (Eds.), Methodological and statistical advances in the study of individual differences (pp 1-49). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-4940-2_1
11. Gruber, H. E. (1974). Darwin on Man: A Psychological Study of Scientific Creativity. Together with Darwin's Early and Unpublished Notebooks transcribed and annotated by Paul H. Barrett; Foreword by Jean Piaget. New York, NY: E. P. Dutton.
12. Gruber, H. (1982). On the hypothesized relation between giftedness and creativity. In D. H. Feldman (ed.). New directions for child development: Developmental approaches to giftedness and creativity. (p.17). San Francisco. Jossey-Bass. https://doi.org/10.1002/cd.23219821704
13. Gruber, H.E.& Bödeker, K. (eds.) (2005). Creativity, Psychology and the History of Science, (pp. 1-18), Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3509-8
14. Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw Hill.
15. Harvey, O. J., Hunt, D. E., & Schroder, H. M. (1961). Conceptual systems and personality organization. New York: Wiley.
16. Horn, J.L. (1965). Fluid and crystallized intelligence: A factor analytic and developmental study of the structure among primary mental abilities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Champaign.
17. Kholodnaya M.A., & Volkova E.V. (2016). Conceptual structures, conceptual abilities and productivity of cognitive functioning: the ontological approach. Procedia - Social and Behavioural Sciences 2016, 217C. 914-922.
18. Kholodnaya, M. A. (2002). Psihologiya intellekta: Paradoksyi issledovaniya. 2-e izd., pererab. dop. SPb.: Piter. [Psychology of intelligence: Paradoxes of Research] (2nd ed). Sankt-Peterburg: Piter.
19. Kholodnaya, M. A. (2012). Psikhologiya ponyatiynogo myshleniya: Ot konzeptual’nuch struktur
20. k ponyatiinum sposobnostyam [The psychology of conceptual thinking: From conceptual structures to conceptual abilities]. Moscow: Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
21. Lakoff, G. (2011). Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories of language tell us about thinking. Moscow: Gnozis.
22. Li, R. (1996). A Theory of Conceptual Intelligence: Thinking, Learning, Creativity and Giftedness. Westport, C.T: Praeger Publishers.
23. Ponomaryov, Y.A. (1999). Psychology of creation. Moscow: MPSI, Voronezh: MODEK. (in Russian).
24. Ranjan, A., & Srinivasan, N. (2010). Dissimilarity in creative categorization. Journal of Creative Behavior, 44, 71-83. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2010.tb01326.x
25. Raven, J. C., Court, J. H., & Raven, J. (1992). Manual for Raven’s Progressive Matrices and vocabulary scales. Oxford: Oxford psychologists press LTD.
26. Sattler, J. M. (1988). Assessment of Children: Cognitive Foundations (3rd ed.). San Diego
27. Sergienko, E.A. (2005). Razvitie modeli psihicheskogo kak mental’ny`j mehanizm stanovleniya sub``ekta [Development of mind model as a mental model of subjectivism formation]. In V.V. Znakov, Z.I. Ryabikina (eds.). Sub``ekt, lichnost’, psihologiya chelovecheskogo by`tiya [The subject, the person, psychology of human life]. Moskva: Izdatel’stvo “Institut psihologii RAN”. (pp. 243-270).
28. Taylor, C. W. (1985). Cultivating multiple creative talents in students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 8, 187–198. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235328500800303
29. Torrance, E.P. (1972). Torrance tests of creative thinking norms - technical manual. Bensenville, Illinois: Scholastic Testing Service.
30. Tolman, E. C. (1948). Cognitive Maps in Rats and Men. Psychological Review, 55, 189-208. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0061626
31. Tunick, E. E. (1998). Diagnosis of creativity, Manual for test E. Torrance. St. Petersburg: Imaton. (In Russian).
32. Vekker, L. (1981). Mental processes. Leningrad. (In Russian).
33. Volkova, E. V. (2011). Psychology of special abilities: differentiation and integration approach. Moscow: IP RAS. (In Russian).
34. Volkova, E V. (2013). Age Dynamics of Intelligence in Adolescence And Early Adulthood. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 140, 441-447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.04.450
35. Volkova E.V. (2014). The Nature of Creativity: Differential-Integration Approach. Humanities and Social Sciences Review, 3(2), 375-388.
36. Volkova, E. V. (2013c). Triune aspect of the functional organization of the concept: Past, Present and Future. World of Psychology, 2, 29-41. (In Russian).
37. Vygotsky, L. S. (1982). Thinking and communication. In Collected Works of L.S. Vygotsky (2, 5–361). Moscow: Pedagogika. (In Russian).
38. Ward, T. B., & Sifonis, C. M. (1997). Task demands and generative thinking: What changes and
39. what remains the same? Journal of Creative Behavior, 31(4), 245–259. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1997.tb00797.x
40. Yasyukova, L.A. (2005). Regularities of conceptual thinking development and its role in training. Saint
41. Petersburg.