Relative Contributions of Nature and Nurture to the Diminishing Creativity Levels of Developing Children

Background

Creativity is defined as the ability to make new things or think of new ideas.  In a society creativity is extremely valuable. Any new developments and advancements in any field or area of study can be attributed to creativity.

There are popular opinions in the world which blame schools for killing creativity in children. (Robinson, 2006) The idea is that children are being taught that there is one right answer and being wrong is the worst possible offense. School’s focus on convergent thinking is killing divergent thinking. Schools are part of society. So, this is an argument that creativity is reduced by nurture, or lack thereof.

Our society labels individuals as creative or non-creative. Creative types or divergent thinkers are often treated differently. They are put into gifted classes. This phenomenon indicates that our society at large believes that creativity is a natural propensity instead of something that can be learned or un-learned. This is an argument that creativity is a natural phenomenon, a talent, which is instilled by genetics.

Opinions also state that brain plasticity (neuroplasticity) is required for creativity. (Bamford, 2006) Brain plasticity is the brain’s ability to change or adapt over time. Brain plasticity is believed to reduce with age naturally. So, this is an argument that creativity is reduced by nature.

In order to increase creativity in our society we must understand the factors that both develop and repress it. Once the components that reduce creativity in a person have been identified we can begin to counter those components.

Hypothesis

There is a natural reduction in creativity due to a decline in brain plasticity as a human develops that is at least as strong as any reduction caused by social and environmental factors driven by schooling methods.

Methods

Testing the hypothesis was done by searching for supporting and contradicting articles in peer reviewed journals.

In the proposed model of creativity both nature and nurture affect creativity. Brain plasticity is put forth as a major component of the nature portion. The nurture portion in the model is the effect schools have on creativity.

In order to fully support the hypothesis presented in this paper the research must show that:

1. Creativity is a measurable attribute.
2. Creativity, on average, starts very high in young children and diminishes over time.
3. Brain plasticity is a natural and necessary component of creativity.
4. Brain plasticity reduces significantly with age.
5. The relative reduction in creativity due to brain plasticity is greater than school contributions.

Each of these points was researched.

Results

Each subsection below addresses the points which were identified in the methods section as required for support of the hypothesis. Topic by topic the research found is presented and explained.

Creativity is a measurable attribute

Creativity can be measured in a number of ways. There is a collection of divergent thinking tests (Hocevar, 1981) and there is the Adjective Check List. (Domino, 1994) Newer articles are indicating that the divergent thinking tests such as the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking are still valid and can be trusted. (Kim, 2006) Knowing that creativity can be measured allows us to compare levels of creativity at different ages and under diverse environmental influences.

Creativity, on average, starts very high in young children and diminishes over time.

There is a longitudinal study that indicates that 98% of children in kindergarten score at a genius level in divergent thinking. The study showed that number reduces to 30% at 10 years old and further degrades to 12% at 15 years old. (Land & Jarman, 1992) This study supports the idea that creativity, on average, starts very high in young children and diminishes over time, but the study is not published in a peer reviewed journal. No indication of a peer reviewed study matching this description was found.

Brain plasticity is a natural and necessary component of creativity.

The hypothesis presented in this paper hits a stumbling block with this point. The stumble is not due to a contradictory article, but because the biological components of creativity are still fairly undefined.

No solid framework for the neural basis of creative thinking exists. (Dietrich & Kanso, 2010)  Which means that the current science does not know what biology is responsible for creativity. Brain plasticity is not ruled out as being a natural and necessary component of creativity, but it is not currently accepted as required for creativity.

Brain plasticity reduces significantly with age.

In the past the concept of age-based plasticity was that the brain was fully plastic at birth and then plasticity was lost with age and development. This concept was based on evidence that brain injuries in children would produce fewer deficits and a more rapid recovery than in adults. Now evidence shows that other differences exist between child brain injuries and adult brain injuries.  With this new evidence the relationship between brain injury recovery time and age based plasticity becomes correlative. Correlation does not imply causation, therefore, the evidence that plasticity reduces with age becomes uncertain. (Dennis, 2000)

The relative reduction in creativity due to brain plasticity is greater than school contributions.

There are no published articles which can confirm or deny this. The statement is further advanced than the current state of the science.

The field of creativity research is not yet developed enough to support or disprove the hypothesis proposed in this paper. More research is required. Once the biology of creativity is understood perhaps it will be clear that brain plasticity plays a major role in creativity.

Discussion

The hypothesis of this paper was intended to link declines in creativity to nature through brain plasticity with more strength than through school nurture influences. The hypothesis met weak support for two main reasons:

1. No peer reviewed paper indicates that creativity does decline over time. There is a book which states as much but it did not go through the peer review process.
2. The biological structures for creativity are unknown. This prevents us from knowing if creativity is dependent on brain plasticity.

The findings of the researcher indicate that the problems in creativity research are difficult and have just begun to be tackled. Defining creativity and its origins within the brain are complex subjects.

It was particularly disappointing not to find peer reviewed evidence supporting George Land’s longitudinal study of the decline in capacity for divergent thinking in children. Perhaps George Land’s research could be readdressed, broken into multiple papers and published in peer reviewed journals. It seems that his book makes some claims that are unsupportable by peer reviewed research. Specifically, he extends the results of his longitudinal study blaming educational stimuli (nurture) for the reduction in divergent thinking that he had documented. It is not understood how he can place so much blame on the nurture side of the argument when so little is understood about the nature side.

His longitudinal study may have significant value if it is separated from the rest of his book and published in a peer reviewed journal. Once his experimental process has been evaluated and accepted at least we would have evidence that divergent thinking declines from age 5 to 25.

Works Cited