Browse All

Theses & Dissertations

Submissions

  • Submissions (Articles, Chapters, and other finished products)

Rejoinder: The madness to our method: Some thoughts on divergent thinking

UNCG Author/Contributor (non-UNCG co-authors, if there are any, appear on document)
Paul Silvia, Assistant Professor (Creator)
John T Willse, Assistant Professor (Creator)
Beate P. Winterstein (Creator)
Institution
The University of North Carolina at Greensboro (UNCG )
Web Site: http://library.uncg.edu/

Abstract: In this reply, the authors examine the madness to their method in light of the comments. Overall, the authors agree broadly with the comments; many of the issues will be settled only by future research. The authors disagree, though, that past research has proven past scoring methods—including the Torrance methods—to be satisfactory or satisfying. The authors conclude by offering their own criticisms of their method, of divergent thinking, and of the concept of domain-general creative abilities.

Additional Information

Publication
Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 1931-3896, 2008, Vol. 2, Issue 2
Language: English
Date: 2008
Keywords
divergent thinking, Torrance tests