18 Educational Research ^arter ly 2009

Problem Solving Style, Creative Thinking,and Problem Solving Cotifidence

John C. Houtz ^dwin C. SelbyFordham University

Forty-two undergraduate and graduate students completed VIEW: AnAssessment of Problem Solving Style, the non-verbal Trrame Test ThinkingCreatively with Pictures, and the Problem Solving Inventory (PSI). VIEWassesses individuals' orientation to change, manner of processing^ and wcrys ofdeeding while the Torrance test measures several productivity measures, notablyideational fiuency. The non-verbal form also yields one 'process" score:resistance to closure. Finally, the Problem Solving Inventory measuresindividuals' confidence in and affective control of their problem solving process,plus an indication whether an "approach" or "avoidant" style is characteristic.Consistent with VIEW theory, there was no relationship between actualcreative thinkingproduction and problem solving style. However, VIEW scoresof orientation to change (OC) and ways of deciding (WD) were correlatedsignificantly with the Torrance measure of resistance to closure. On VIEW,Explorers (OC) and Person-oriented deciders (WD) were more resistant toclosure.

For several years now, researchers have been able to study both theaffective as well as the cognitive aspects of human problem solving(Sternberg, 1997; Sternberg & Grigorenko, 1997). llie construct ofcreative problem solving style has been identified and distinguishedfrom measures of creative thinking ability and achievement(Treffinger, Selby, Isaksen & Crumel, 2007). Style is defined as arelatively stable preference an individual expresses whenapproaching problems, considering information, and makingdecisions. Style is an individual difference variable of humanbehavior similar to other cognitive or information processingstyles, of which there are many that have been defined, measured,and studied in the literature of educational psychology (Jonassen &Grabowski, 1993).

Style theory is based on the proposition that the way aproblem solver prefers to approach or work on a problem cangreatly affect his or her success. This has been referred to as the

Vol. 33.1 EEjducational tJesearch Kfuarterly 19"level-style" distinction (Isaksen & Dorval, 1993). In simpler terms,style researchers have been interested in the "how" an individualsolves problems, instead of "how much" problem solving skill anindividual possesses. How individuals approach and work onproblems is important because there are many different types ofproblems and problem contexts. Individuals with qualitatively orsharply different preferences may be more or less able to adapt tothe conditions, limitations, and/or possibilities for soludonsinherent in different problem types and environments. Whenproblem solving work requites group activities, individuals withdiffering styles may experience difficulties working together as well.If the style of a learner or worker is known, then instruction can beplanned that complements that style rather than conflicts, thusfacilitatmg performance rather than hindering it (Cronbach &Snow, 1977).

The purpose of the present study was to add to theconstruct validity of VIEW: An Assessment of Problem Solving Style(Selby, Treffinger, & Isaksen, 2002). VIEW is a reladvely new entryinto the creative problem solving style literature, but it isdistinguished by a substantial theoretical underpinning in cognitivestyle and personality research. VIEW assesses three aspects of styleor preferences that individuals may have in their perceptions ofand approach to problems, in generating ideas, and evaluating andchoosing among possibies.

On VIEW, there is a person's Orientation to Change(OC). Individuals may feel more comfortable working within astructure, perhaps bending rules to "make a better box", so tospeak. On the other hand, some individuals may respond to changeby creating entirely new rules, preferring instead to "destroyboxes". Another style difference is one's Manner of Processing(MP). Individuals may prefer to search their own Internal resourceswhile considering ideas, or individuals may seek out External inputsfrom other individuals. VIEWs third dimension is Ways ofDeciding (WD) among possible soludons. Some individuals areTask-oriented, and select alternatives that "get the job done" aseffidendy as possible. Other individuals are Person-oriented andselect altemadves that take into consideradon the effects on otherpeople of various choices. Individuals can exhibit strong or

20 . Educational Research ^luarterly 2009

moderate preferences, or no preferences at all. In any of thesecases, though, individuals may still experience success, and they canand do solve problems.

To examiae the "level-style" distinction hypothesisdirecdy, this study compared results of VIEW with a measxire ofactual creative productivity, obtained from one of the Torrance Testsof Creative Thinking (TTCT, Torrance, 1974). In addition, the ProblemSolving Inventory (PSI, Heppner, 1988), was selected to extendVIEW theory to another measure that was developed and appliedin a discipline (general adjustment and counseling) different &omthe creativity literature. The PSI was designed to assess individuals'perceptions of their own affective styles or ways they approach andrespond mostly to social and interpersonal problem situations.

MethodParticipants

A convenience sample of participants included 23 graduateand 19 undergraduate students from three psychology classes in amajor New York City university. Thirteen students were enxolled ina Masters in Business Administration (MBA) program. Tenstudents were Masters and doctoral candidates in counseling andschool psychology. Of the 19 undergraduates, most were juniorand senior psychology majors. There were 29 women and 13 menand participants ranged in age fi:om 18 (one freshman) to 35 yearsof age, widi a mean of 23.57 years (SD = 3.66). The majority ofparticipants were white. There were 2 each of Afiican-Americahand Asian ethnic backgrounds and 6 of Hispanic ethnic identity.Instruments

VIEW (Selby, Treffinger, & Isaksen, 2002, 2007) is a 34-item self-report Likert-scale measuring three relatively independentconstructs: Orientation to Change (OC), Manner of Processing(MP), and Ways of Deciding (WD). Individuals indicate theirpreference along a bi-polar scale for each item. For OC, the polesare "Explorer" or 'T)eveloper". For MP, die poles are "External"and "Internal". For WD, the poles are "Person-odented" and"Task-oriented". Of course, individuals may exhibit nopreferences, but the greater individuals rate themselves towardseither pole, the more likely they are to exhibit distinctive

Vol. 33.1 QEducational ISesearch Quarterly 21

approaches or behaviors in problem solving.Similarly, the Problem Solving Inventory (PSI, Heppner, 1988;

Heppner, Witty, & Dixon, 2004) is a 35-item self-report measure towhich individuals respond on a 6-point scale to each item. The PSImeasures tliree constructs as well: 1) an individual's perceivedconfidence, self-assurance, or self-efficacy in his or her problemsolving, 2) an individual's seeming approach or avoidance style inproblem solving, and 3) an individual's perceived sense of personalcontrol over his or her emodons or affecdve processes duringproblem solving.

The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT, Torrance,1974) have been among the most widely used assessments ofcreadve thinking potendal since their inidal development in the1950s. There are numerous versions and forms of these measures,including verbal and non-verbal (drawing and acdon/movement)assessments. Thinking Creatively with Pictures consists of threedrawing acdvides where individuals must add marks, Unes, shading,and other drawing details to complete various ambiguous andincomplete designs or figures. Scores for individuals' drawingsinclude fluency (the number of details added or drawingscompleted), originality (how rare or unusual are the completeddrawings), and resistance to closure, a rating that represents thedegree to which judges feel that individuals' responses reflect adeeper searching or thoughtfukiess for less obvious ideas.

The TTCT have established reliability and validity,including decades-long longitudinal studies of predicdve validity.They have been translated into many languages and appliedworldwide. Reviews of the TTCT exist in Bros' MentalMeasurements Yearbooks, Test Critiques, and major journals. As for thePSI, reliability data have been reported in the 70s to 80s, andconstruct validity through factor analyses is supported (Heppner,1988; Heppner et al, 2004). It may be stated diat the TCT and PSIare widely used and familiar measures to educadonal psychologistsand counselors. AS for the newer instrument, VIEW reportsreliabilides in the upper 80s and support for its three-factorstructure (Selby et al, 2007) with administradons currentlynumbering more than 16,000. VIEW has been translated andapplied in several foreign countries (See www.viewstyle.net).

22 Klducational Research &iarterly 2009

ProceduresThe three instruments were administered by the senior

author, who was the ixistructor for each of the three classes. VIEWand PSI took approximately 10-15 minutes to complete. ThinkingCreatively with Pictures was a timed test, with each of die threeactivities requiring 10 minutes to complete. Each itistrument waspart of the regular class activities, but participants understood theirresults on these instruments were not part of course grades. Theinstruments were administered on separate days during the Fall2006 semester. Participants received feedback on their individualand group scores and references and resources to pursue furtherstudy related to their creative problem solving styles andperformance.

In the present study, the VIEW and PSIwete hand-scoredby the authors, both of whom are experienced researchers andtrained in test administration, scoring, and interpretation. ThinkingCreatively with Pictures was scored by Scholastic Test Sendee'sprofessional scoring service.

Results and DiscussionSeveral analyses were computed using the Statistical

Package for the Social Sciences. For each of the study variables,tests of distribution normality were computed and no variableexceeded normality parameters. Second, Atests comparing men andwomen on each variable yielded only one significant difference.Men were significantly more "Explorer" on VIEWs OGdimension {t - 2.01, p < .05). With regard to gender differences, itshould be noted that the mean of the women on Orientation toChange was barely one point higher than the mid-point (72) of thisdimension reported in the VIEW matiual (Mwomm = 73.07, SD =17.94). The mean for men's OC score in this sample was 61.85(SD = 13.25). Table 1 presents descriptive statistics for theparticipants on all study variables.One-way analyses of variance were computed comparing the threeclasses (the MBA psychology class, the graduate psychology class,and the undergraduate psychology class). The only significantdifference observed was on the PSI personal control dimension,where the undergraduate students rated themselves as much less in

Vol, 33,1 SBducational Research lyluarterly 23

control (M = 20,38, SD = 3,97) of their affect during problemsolving (F = 9,34,/) < 001), The students in both graduate classeshad virtually identical scores on personal control (M's = 14,42,14.78, SDs = 2.39, 4,99),

Table 1: Descriptive Statistics for All Study Variables*Variable

AgeRuencyOriginalityTidesElaborationResistanceChangeProcessingDecidingConfidenceApproach-Avoid,ControlTotal PSI

42

41

41

N

424242424242424232.644139.734179.73

Mean

23,5716,8315,8610,817,1412,8669,6033,0210,0022,12

9.6016,9013.17

SD

3,667,235.814.132.343.92

17,298.62

146,70

94.60

54

Min

1866445

29145611586111

Max

35393322152010650

47

25

*Note: One participant failed to complete the PS.

As participants were a sample of convenient, partialcorrelations were computed controlling for age and gender, tomeasure the relationships between and among VIEW, PSI, andTorrance scores. Among the three VIEW scores, correlationswere non-significant, ranging from -,009 to ,194, Among the PSIdimension scores, correlations were non-significant, ranging from -,102 to ,246, Both of these results were consistent with VIEW anaPSI theories and prior psychometrics, respectively.

However, among the Torrance scores, fluency wassignificantly related to originality (r = ,62), elaboration (r - ,49),and resistance to premature closure (r = .51), These correlationswere significant beyond ,01, Originality was correlated toelaboration (r = ,35) and resistance (r = ,40). These correlationswere significant at the ,05 level. Elaboration and resistance weresignificantly correlated ( r = .40,^ < .05).

Tides

2716

Elaboration

49**2722

Resistance

50**34*46**37*

24 Educational Research ^arter ly 2009

Table 2: Partial Intercorrelations among Torrance Scores, Controlling forAge and Gender(N = 41, df=37)*

Originality

Fluency ' 59**OriginalityTidesElaboration ^* p< .05; decimal points of correlations are omitted.**/;

Vol. 33.1 IMIducational Isjesearch ^uarterly 25Dunn, 1978; Jonassen & Grabowski, 1993). Educationalpsychologists recognized quickly and continue to recognize thepromise and potential of attribute- or trait-treatment interactionsbased on style and other individual difference variables (Cronbach& Snow, 1977; Kyllonen & Lajoie, 2003), but readily acknowledgedthat research must continue.

The "level-style" distinction is central to continuingstudies. Its premise is that, in the ideal, absolute achievement is notnecessarily tied to one particular style. Individuals of differing stylesmay achieve equally if their respective environments are compatiblewith their style. In this study, none of VIEW and PSI scores weresignificandy correlated with the Torrance measures of fluency,originality, or elaboration. ITie measures used in this study did notintroduce the variable of problem context, so it was expected thatindividuals with different styles would fare equally.

But when the problem solving context changes, as types ofproblem situations or "demands" vary, different styles may bemore or less helpful. An individual with a particularly strongpreference may "match" the problem situation very well. Theopposite, or a "mismatch" may occur instead, and performancemay suffer. With knowledge of style, experiences and environmentscan be created and/or manipulated to maximize performance(Wang & Walberg, 1985). Since the TTCT involves very general,somewhat "abstract" tasks, with the focus on fluency of ideasrather than specific solutions, one style or another should not havehad an advantage. This is one of those cases in research where oneis pleased with the absence of statistical significance.

With respect to the Problem Solving Inventory, no PSI scorerelated sigmcantiy to three Torrance measures either. However, incontrast to fluency, originality, and elaboration, it may be arguedthat the Torrance resistance to premature closure score is more ofa measure of "persistence" rather than actual achievement(Torrance, 1990). A high resistance to closure score may surestthat the individual is less willing to "give up" and, instead, willcontinue to "process" more information. If so, then there are threesignificant correlations that are interesting and consistent with styletheory.

26 ffiducadonal Research Quarterly 2009

Table 4: Partial Intercorrelations among Problem Solving Inventory (PSI)Scores,Controlling for Age and Gender (N = 41, df = 37)*

Approach- Avoidance Control PSI Total

Confidence .12 .24 .70**Approach-Avoidance -.15 .66**Control ;41** p< .05; decimal points of correlations are omitted.**/>

Vol. 33.1 tiaducational itsJesearch ySkiarterly 27

Table 6: Means and Standard Deviations of TTCT" Resistance to ClosureScores for Three Groups based on VTEWScotes

OC-Groups Mp-Groups WD-GroupsN Mean SD SE N Mean SD SE N Mean SD SE

Group"Higher" 15 13.53 4.29 1.11 12 12.00 3.10 .90 15 15.07 2.89 .75"Mid-range" 14 13.29 3.54 .95 11 14.09 3.51 .94 12 11.92 4.12 1.19"Lower" 13 11.62 3.88 1.08 19 12.68 4.57 1.05 15 11.40 3.89 1.01

On the PSI, resistance to closure was significantly relatedto the approach-avoidance dimension {r .368,7) < .05), and thispositive relationship suggests that "avoidant" individuals are moreresistant to closure. This makes sense, although we acknowledgethat avoidant behaviors may not be "ideal" problem solvingbehavior in many situations. As for the construct validity ofVIEW, on the other hand, these correlations are a positiveoutcome. Explorers are your typical "out-of-the-box" thinkers,deliberately, perhaps impatiently, pushing limits beyond the"breaking point," so to speak, looking for or creating newcombinations, aU of which suggest that more than the initialinformation presented in a problem situation must be "processed".Similarly, Person-oriented deciders make choices only after or inconjunction with additional information concerning how varioussolutions likely will impact others. Individuals that are more eagerto end their work, find the quicker, perhaps easier solution path aremore Ukely to be less resistant to closure.

Effect s2es for the above three ANOVAs ranged from .49to 1.01, with an average of .69. Despite the strong effect sizes,from Cohen (1988), statistical power ranges from a low of .10 forthe OC and MP comparisons to .81 for the WD comparison.Clearly, a limitation of this study is the small sample size.

Table 7: Partial Intercorrelations aniong VIEW and Problem SolvingInventory (^PSI) Scores, Controlling for Age and Gender (N = 41, df = 37)*

OrientationProcessingDeciding

Confidence-.04-05-10

Approach- Avoidance-2503

-26

Control-2404

-19

PSI Total-2004

-25*Note: Decimal points of correlations are omitted.

28 UducatiotiallSesearchauarterly 2009Table 8: Partial Intercorrelations among Torrance and Problem SolvingInventory (PSI) Scores, Controlling for Age and Gender (N = 41, df = 37)*

ConfidenceFluency -08Originality -11Tides 02Elaboration 04Resistance -09

Approac h-Avoidance2113002535*

Control14

-11041910

PSI Total11-00032716

*p< ,05; decimal points of correlations are omitted.

Finally, the VIEW and PSI had no significantintercorrelations. Possibly, one's confidence in or judgment ofproblem solving self-efficacy may have Uttle to do with one'sproblem solving style. With the "level-style" distinction.Developers and Explorers, Internals or Externals, or Task- orPerson-oriented deciders may have had equal past successes(and/or failures) in problem solving; thus, PSI confidence scoresare unaffected. On the other hand, one might also hypothesize thatInternal processors might feel in greater control and Externals lessin affective control during problem solving. Or, possibly Task-oriented decision-makers might be more inclined to score more"approach-oriented" on the PSI Obviously, VIEWznd the PSI donot appear to be measuring the same constructs and additionalresearch is desirable.

References

Bloom, B. S. (1976), Human characteristics and school learning. N e wYork: McGraw-Hill.

Cohen, J. (1988), Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2"''ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Edbaum.

Dunn , K., & Dunn , R, (1978). Teaching students through their individuallearning styles. Reston, VA: National Council of Prindpals.

Cronbach, L. J. (1957), The two disciplines of scientific psychology.American Psychologist, 12, 671-684,

Cronbach, L. J,, & Snow, R. E, (1977), Aptitudes and instructionalmethods: A handbook for research on interactions. N e w York:Irvington,

Feldhusen, J. F. (1995). Creativity: A knowledge base,metacognidve skills, and personality factors. Journal ofCreative behavior, 29, 255-268,

Vol. 33.1 tfelducational [KJesearch y^artcrly 29

Heppner, P. P. (1988). The Problem Solving Inventory (PSI): Manual.Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Heppner, P. P., Witty, T. E. , & Dixon, W. A. (2004). Problem-solving appraisal and human adjustment: A review of20 years of research using the Problem Solving Inventory. TheCounseling Psychologist, 32, 344-428.

Isaksen, S. G., & Dorval, K. B. (1993). Toward an improvedunderstanding of creativity within people: The level-styledistinction. In S. G. Isaksen, M. C. Murdock, R. L.Firestein, & D. J. Treffinger (Eds.), Understanding andrecognir^ng creativity: The emergence of a discipline (pp. 299-330).Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Jonassen, D. H., & Grabowski, B. L. (1993). Handbook ofinvidualdifferences, learning, and instruction. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Kagan, J., Moss, H., & Sigel, I. (1963). Psychological significance oftypes of conceptual2ations. Monographs of the Sodety forResearch in Child Development, 28 (2, Serial No. 86).

Kyllonen, P. C , & Lajoie, S. P. (2003). Reassessing aptitude:Introduction to a special issue in honor of Richard E.Snow. Educational Psychologist, 38, 79-83.

Rotter, J. B. (1954). Sodal learning and clinical psychology. EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Selby, E. C , Treffinger, D. J., & Isaksen, S. G. (2002). VIEW: Anassessment of problem solving style. Sarasota, FL: Center forCreative Learning, Inc.

Selby, E. C , Treffinger, D. J., & Isaksen, S. G. (2007). VIEW: Anassessment of problem solving style: Technical manual. Sarasota,FL: Center for Creative Learning, Inc.

Selby, E. C , Treffinger, D. J., Isaksen, S. G., & Lauer, K J. (2004).Defining and assessing problem-solving style: Design anddevelopment of a new tool. Journal of Creative Behavior, 38,221-243. (b)

Selby, E. C , Treffinger, D. J., Isaksen, S. G., & Lauer, K J. (2002).VIEW: An assessment of problem solving style technical manualand user's guide. Sarasota, FL: Center for Creative Learning,Inc.

Stemberg, R. J. (1997). Thinking styles. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.

30 Educational ISesearchbarterly 2009

Stemberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (1997). Are cognitive stylesstill in style. American Psychologist, 52, 700-712.

Torrance, E. P. (1974). The Torrance Tests of Creative ThinkingBensenville, IL: Scholastic Test Service, Inc.

Torrance, E. P. (1990). Tbe Torrance Tests of Creative ThinkingNortnsTechnical Manual Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Test Service.

Treffinger, D. J., Isaksen, S. G., & Stead-Dorval, K. B. (2006):Creative problem solving. An introduction (4* ed.). Waco, TX:Prufrock Press.

Treffinger, D. J., Selby, E. C , Isaksen, S. G., & Crumel, J. H.(2007). An introduction to problem solving style. Sarasota, FL:Center for Creative Learning, Inc.

Wang, M. C. & Walberg, H. J. (Eds.) (1985). Adapting instruction toindividual differences. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.

Widdn, H. A., Moore, C. A., Goodenough, D. R., & Cox, R. W.(1977). Field-dependent and fleld-independent cognitivestyles and their educational implications. Review ofEducational ^ search, 47,1-64.

The authors wish to thank Dr. Donald J. Trenger, of the Center forCreative Learning Inc., for helpful comments in the preparation of this report.