POSTFORMAL THINKING AND CREATIVITY AMONG LATEADOLESCENTS: A POST-PIAGETIAN APPROACH

Pai-Lu Wu and Wen-Bin Chiou

ABSTRACT*

This study investigated the relationship between cognitive development levelsand creative performance among late adolescents from a post-Piagetian per-spective. Participants were 386 college students, ranging in age from 19 to 26years. The Social Paradigm Belief Scale was employed to measure the threecognitive styles of late adolescence: formsd, relativistic, and dialectical think-ing. The Divergent Thinking Test (DTT) was used to measure creative perfor-mance. Dialectical and relativistic thinking were positively correlated withcreative performance, whereas formal thinking was negatively correlated.Planned contrasts revealed that postformal thinkers scored higher than formalthinkers in all dimensions of creativity, and additional MANOVA analysisexhibited a similar pattem. Multiple discriminant analysis showed that thelinear combination of the six dimensions of creativity recognized in the DTTdiscriminated between formal and postformal thinkers, which supported ourfindings about the relationship between postformal thinking and creativity.Future research directions and implications for creativity pedagogy are dis-cussed.

Most studies on creativity have originated in personality and educa-tional psychology, whereas the relationship between cognitive develop-ment and creativity has received little attention. Few studies aboutcreative people have focused on individual cognitive development.

Two major approaches have been used to study creativity. The psy-chological measurement approach considers creativity as an individualability that may be conceptualized with descriptive theories. This ap-proach mainly evaluates individual differences in creativity and cre-ative performance. The other approach focuses on describing thecreative process, with the aim of understanding the internal processesof creativity. However, it fails to address developmental changes increativity. Lacking an ontological genesis for creativity, studies in thecultivation of creativity have found only the necessary factors. Thus,

Pai-Lu Wu, Center for Teacher Education, Cheng Shiu University, Taiwan,Republic of China.

Requests for reprints should be sent to Wen-Bin Chiou, Center for TeacherEducation, National Sun Yat-Sen University, 70, Lien-Hai Rd., Kaohsiung804, Taiwan, R.O.C. E-mail: wbchiou@mail.nsysu.edu.tw

ADOLESCENCE, Vol. 43, No. 170, Summer 2008Libra Publishers, Inc., 3089C Clairemont Dr., PMB 383, San Diego, CA 92117

studies based on these two approaches may offer examples of highlycreative people and discuss their characteristics or describe their majorthought processes. However, a hetter understanding of the factors in-volved in creativity requires a developmental approach that considersthe origins of creative development (Ross, 1977).

Understanding how cognitive development affects creative function-ing is central to the developmental study of creativity. A post-Piagetianperspective on cognitive development in late adolescence suggests thatthe epistemic level of late adolescence develops from Piaget's (1980)final cognitive developmental stage (formal operations), leading topostformal thinking (Arlin, 1984; Koplowitz, 1984; Kramer & Wood-ruff, 1986; Perry, 1970; Ryhash & Roodin, 1989). Results of tests ofthis theoretical proposal have been consistent with this view (Chiou, inpress; Kahlbaugh & Kramer, 1995; Kramer & Melchior, 1990; Kramer,Kahlhaugh, & Goldston, 1992; Sebby & Papini, 1994). Kramer (1983)proposed three themes running through postformal thinking: (a)awareness of the relativistic nature of knowledge, (b) acceptance ofcontradiction, and (c) integration of contradiction into the dialecticalwhole. Thus, "postformal" thinking is considered to he relativistic anddialectical in nature.

In this study, we considered the development of postformal thinkingat one particular point in life— l̂ate adolescence—and its relationshipto creative growth. In particular, we investigated the ways in whichpostformal thinking development in late adolescence might facilitatecreative performance.

The Essence of CreativityAlthough creativity has yet to be defined, researchers considering

the phenomenon from different perspectives commonly agree on anumber of characteristics of the creative process and creative workproducts. The first characteristic is novelty, and most definitions ofcreativity start here. Being novel, atypical, or unusual are the dimen-sions most frequently measured on creativity tests (Guilford, 1967;Torrance, 1962).

Another dimension of creative performance is value. In addition tobeing unusual, the creative response needs to fulfill criteria of use-fulness and effectiveness in problem solving. The value dimensionstresses quality in the creative response. For example, to the threedimensions of fiexihility, fiuency, and originality suggested by Guilford(1967), Torrance (1962) added elaboration, which is essentially value.Both elaboration and value stress that creative response measure-

238

merits cannot be limited to quantity, but must also include quality (seeAmabile, 1983, and Rothenberg and Hausman, 1976, for a relatedidea).

Relationship between Postformal Thinking and CreativityFormal or postformal thinking are two possible modes of cognitive

development in the developmental stages of late adolescence (Kahl-baugh & Kramer, 1995; Kramer et al., 1992). Formal thinking allowsthe late adolescent to manipulate logical relationships among abstractpropositions, think about logically possible states of affairs, and usethe experimental method to test hypotheses (Benack, 1984; Labouvie-Vief, 1982). The formal operational thinker solves problems by model-ing them as "closed systems" that are made up of a finite nvmiber ofpossibilities (Basseches, 1984; King, Kitchener, Davison, Parker, &Wood, 1983). When late adolescents approach a problem through for-mal thinking, they already hold some systematic framework fromwhicb to consider tbe problem. This framework specifies a finite num-ber of variables to be considered and defines otber aspects of the prob-lem as irrelevant to tbe solution (Piaget, 1950, 1980). Formal tbinkersexpect to produce a single right answer tbat will bold in all similarcircumstances and across time. Contradictions (inconsistent observa-tions or disagreement by otber people) are regarded as a sign thatsomething is wrong witb tbe solution (Kablbaugb, 1989). Hence, for-mal operational analysis does not appear to describe adequately tbecreative aspects of evolving thought, i.e., of theory creation ratber tbantheory testing. Creativity in science and otber fields based on formalanalysis appears to require cognitive operations tbat retain the powerof systematic thinking but also transcend its limitations. Thus, formal-ist thinking is in opposition to tbe novelty of creativity. In sbort, formalthinking cannot create unlimited possibilities because a closed systemcan generate only a limited number of relationships (Sinnott, 1981,1989).

In relativistic thinking, wbicb is a particular mode of postformalthinking, specific beliefs and values are part of larger thought systems(Kablbaugb, 1989; Kramer & Melcbior, 1990; Kramer et al., 1992).Tbus, differences of opinion can exist, and one answer is not "rigbt"and tbe others "wrong," because problems can be viewed from manyperspectives. Tbis awareness of multiple systematic ways of viewingreality renders an individual's own view more permeable and moreinfiuenced by otber perspectives tbat may define tbe problem in funda-mentally different ways (Basseches, 1984). Tbe tendency of relativistictbinkers to be aware of and look to perspectives otber tban tbeir own

239

should be a source of greater diversity and novelty. The criterion forcreative value in relativistic thinking lies in the ecological validity ofthe knowledge products (Sinnott, 1984,1989). With its focus on utilityand pragmatism, relativistic thinking can not only facilitate the emer-gence of novelty but can also put value on the creative artifact andensure its utility and validity.

In dialectical thinking, the other mode of postformal thinking (Bas-seches, 1980, 1984),. individuals understand their thoughts to he in aprocess of evolution (Basseches, 1989). Whereas formal thinkers tendto change their ideas only if the old view is "in error," dialectical think-ers see changes in thinking as natural, expectable, and valuable.Thus,a dialectical view of knowledge encourages individuals to willinglymove away from past points of view and to perform the "set-breaking"of "leaping away" shift from old traditions that is viewed as character-istic of creative thinkers. Furthermore, the dialectical thinker seesthe evolution of knowledge as resulting from contradictions within athought system or between a thought system and outside factors(Manzo, 1992). For the formal thinker, contradictions are signs of trou-ble, irritants to he ignored where possible, and eliminated when neces-sary (Kramer, 1989). In contrast, the dialectical thinker considers thatcontradictions play a key role in intellectual growth. A dialectical epis-temology sees contradictions as opportunities to be sought out anddeveloped. Finally, dialectical thinking directs the individual to resolvecontradictions by means of higher order sjnitheses that create new,more complex systems, encompassing the old contradictory elements(Stemherg, 2001). For.researchers who understand creativity to in-volve the holding together or relating of contradictory ideas or frame-works, as in Rotenberg's "Janusian thinking" (1976) or Koestler's ideaof "hisociation" (1964), dialectical thinking serves as a "roadmap" forthe creative process.

In general, postformal thinking gives both cognitive and affectivesupport to viewing these processes as central to creativity. On thecognitive side, postformal thinking may be seen as providing a set ofdirections to thought, such as considering the problem from multipleperspectives, expecting one's way of thinking to change, paying closeattention to contradictions and creating ways to relate and synthesizeideas that seem to be in opposition or to be inconsistent. On the af-fective side, postformal thinking facilitates £in understanding of howknowledge evolves and helps to support the emotional tensions ofthecreative process, which include holding opposing views simultane-ously, sustaining uncertainty, breaking away from estahhshed waysof seeing things, and tolerating ambiguity.

240

METHOD

Participants and ProcedureThe study participants was comprised of 386 college students (191

females and 195 males, 19-26 years old; M = 22.03, SD = 1.80). ofthese, 97 (25%) were freshmen, 100 (26%) sophomores, 97 (25%) ju-niors, and 94 (24%) seniors or non-graduating seniors. Participantswere stratified into three demographic areas: northern, central, andsouthern Taiwan. Participants were asked to complete questionnairesabout their cognitive development, as measured by the Social Para-digm Belief Inventory (SPBI; Kramer et al., 1992), and creativity, asmeasured by the Divergent Thinking Test (DTT; Lin & Wang, 1994).

MeasuresCognitive development. SPBI, developed by Kramer et al. (1992), was

used to evaluate the cognitive developmental levels of participants.The original SPBI was a 27-item, forced-choice inventory, wherein sub-jects chose one of three statements (formal, relativistic, or dialectical)with which they most agreed. The following is a sample item: (a)Change in unnatural. This is because people need traditional valuesto correct societ^s problems, and deviating from such values would bedestructive (formal thinking statement); (b) Change is natural. This isbecause nothing lasts forever, and each new generation brings its ownchanges (relativistic thinking statement); (c) Change is natural. Thisis because there will always be problems whose solutions may dramati-cally change old ways of thinking (dialectical thinking statement).SPBI showed internal consistencies ranging from .60 to .84 (M = .72,SD = .11), good test-retest reliability, points of connection to an in-depth interview measure of worldview beliefs, and both convergentand discriminate validity) (see Kramer et al., 1992, for details).

According to Kramer et al. (1992), the highest z-score method wasapplied to classify participants into formal relativistic, or dialecticalthinking groups. Specifically, to obtain a single "stage score," whichtypically produces a definitive and discriminating classification, thefrequencies of responses to each statement were converted into z-scores, and each subject was classified based on their highest attained2-scores. The z-score method classified 155 participants as formalthinkers and 231 as postformal thinkers (161 relativistic and 70 dialec-tical thinkers).

Creativity. To measure creativity, we used the Divergent ThinkingTest (DTT) in the Creativity Assessment Packet, as modified by Linand Wang (1994). The DTT is composed of 12 unfinished drawings to

241

be completed within a specified time (20 minutes). This test seeksprimarily to measure an individual's creative performance and in-cludes six dimensions: fluency, openness, flexibility, originality, elabo-ration, and naming.

The inter-rater reliability for all DTT scores ranged between .88 and.99, indicating satisfactory consistency among the raters. In test-retestreliability, the correlation coefficients of the six dimensions rangedbetween .44 and .68. Cronbach's alpha coefficients measuring internalconsistency ranged between .45 and .87. For scale validation, the Tor-rance Tests of Creative Thinking (Torrance, 1966) were used as a crite-rion test. Correlation coefficients for concurrent validity werestatistically significant for all age groups, with correlation coefficientsranging between .26 and .55. DTT was implemented in a group format.Higher scores in each of the dimensions indicated higher creative per-formance. Possible scores for fluency and flexibility ranged from 0 to12. Possible scores for openness, originality, elaboration, and namingranged from 0 to 24.

REStlLTS

Correlation AnalysisTable 1 shows the means and standard deviations of participant

responses to the tests, as well as correlations among the irieasures.Participant scores for the three kinds of cognitive thinking were nega-tively correlated: r = —.51 between formal and relativistic thinking, r= —.42 between formal and dialectical thinking, and r = -.41 betweenrelativistic and dialectical thinking. The results indicated that SPBIshowed satisfactory discriminant validity and further revealed thatthe three-choice forced-choice SPBI version could distinguish the pre-eminent and preferable thinking mode used by each participant fromamong the three levels of cognitive development.

With respect to correlations among various levels of cognitive devel-opment and creativity, the formal thinking scores of participants werenegatively correlated with the six dimensions of creativity. More im-portantly, however, both relativistic and dialectical thinking (i.e., post-formal thinking modes) scores were positively correlated with threecreative dimensions. These findings support our predictions and sug-gest that postformal thinking may promote creativity.

Cognitive Group Differences in CreativityThe z-score method, which divided participants among the three

levels of cognitive development based on their highest attained z-score

242

§§

>riO\ VO

.48 f N 00 r o »> CSVO w^ VO U-) </^

^ 2 ?5 2

5 ^ .42

.39

.42

pv'

IT)

oVO 00 = : J:^3 — oo rn00 <n - ^ "/^

!! I

243

(Kramer et al., 1992), placed 155 part icipants in the formal th inkinggroup and 231 in the postformal th inking group. Planned contrastsanalyzed by <-tests were conducted to compare the mean differenceshetween the two groups in six dimensions of creativity (see Table 2).

The ^ t e s t s revealed a consistent pa t t e rn of differences between thetwo cognitive groups. Postformal th inking group part icipants scoredsignificantly higher t h a n did the formal thinking group in all dimen-sions of creativity ip < .001; ^384) = 9.32, for fiuency, ^384) = 43.40for openness, t(384) = 21.Al for fiexibility, ^(384) = 49.37 for original-ity, ^(384) = 40.71 for elaboration, and f(384) = 29.79 for naming). Inaddition, a one-way MANOVA was conducted to examine the holisticdifference in creativity between the two cognitive thinking groups. Re-sults supported the t-Xest findings, indicating t ha t creativity in thepostformal th inking group was significantly higher t h a n in the formalth inking group (F(6, 379) = 707.24, p < .001).

Multiple Discriminant AnalysisMultiple discriminant analysis (MDA) may allow us to determine

whether a part icipant 's performance in the six creativity dimensions(fiuency, openness, fiexibility, originality, elaboration, and naming) ef-

Table2Means and Standard Eteviations of Two Cognitive Thinking Groups

Creativity

Fluency

C^Denness

Flexibility

Originality

Elabraation

Naming

Formal Thinking Groiq)

(«=1

M

9.98

1324

6.70

1328

12.91

13.52

55)

SD

0.84

0.69

0.76

0.54

0.62

0.83

Postfixmal Thinking Groiq)

(«=231)

M

10.77

16.54

8.97

16.46

16.08

16.54

SD

0.80

0.76

0.82

0.67

0.83

1.06

Note. The possible saxes of fluoicy and flexibility ranged from 0 to 12, whoeasthose of openness, ffliginality, elabraation, and naming ranged fixnn 0 to 24.

244

fectively identifies the participant's membership in a cognitive develop-ment group (group variable: 0 = formal thinking group, 1 = postformalthinking group). For cross-validation, the total sample was randomlyclassified into either an "analysis sample" (n = 193) or "holdout sam-ple" (n = 193). In the analysis sample, 71 participants (37%) belongedto the formal thinking group and 122 (63%) to the postformal think-ing group.

MDA with the simultaneous method (see Table 3) indicated tha t thelinear combination of the six dimensions of creativity could effectivelydifferentiate the two cognitive groups. The derived discriminant func-tion is: y (discriminant z score) = —30.35 + (—0.61) fiuency + (—0.08)openness + (—0.86) flexibility + 1.36 originality + 4.25 elaboration +(-2.54) naming, in which Wilks' X. = .07, x^(6) = 489.77, p < .001. The

Table 3MDA of Six E)imensions of Creativity among die Cognitive Tliinldng Groups

Dismminant Variables

Fluency

Openness

Flexibility

Originality

Elaboration

Naming

Hit Rate

Analysis Sanq}le (n = 193)

Holdout Sample («= 193)

Standardized E)iscriminant

CoefBcients

-0.50

-0.06

-0.69

0.81

3.05

-2.40

99%

97%

Dismminant

Loadings

.71

.64

.60

.43

.39

.13

Note. For die analysis sample, die formal thinking group consisted of 77participants, and the postformal thinking group of 122 participants. Alldiscriminant loadings were significant atp < .01.

245

hit rate of correct classification in the analysis sample was 99%, whichwas more than 25% above the proportional chance criterion (0.37^ +0.63^ = 54%, Press's Q = 189.02, df = 1, p < .001). The hit rate ofcorrect classification proportion in the holdout analysis sample was98%, which was also more than 25% above the chance criterion. Thesefindings indicate that the discriminant MDA validity was satisfactory(Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1998). Furthermore, discriminantcoefficients are subject to multicoUinearity; the discriminant loadingsof the variables that refer to correlations between discriminating vari-ables and standardized canonical discriminant functions (i.e., sharedvariance) are more appropriate for understanding the contribution ofeach discriminant variable to the discriminant function (Hair et al.,1998). In the analysis sample data, the discriminant loadings of thesix discriminant variables were all significantly positive at p < .01,indicating that participants who scored higher on the six dimensions ofcreativity also exhibited a higher likelihood of being in the postformalthinking group.

DISCUSSION

Correlation analysis found that formal thinking and the six creativeperformance dimensions were negatively correlated. These results sup-port our original hypothesis, which held that formal thinking is a sin-gle, closed system of cognitive transformations that do not relate tocreative performance. However, because SPBI is a forced-choice test,a high score in one mode of thinking necessarily leads to a lower scorein another mode. Therefore, the negative correlation between formalthinking and creative performance could have been strengthened bythe measurement, and the two variables could have a slight negativecorrelation or no correlation at all. With respect to the relationshipbetween postformal thinking and creativity, both relativistic and dia-lectical thinking were positively correlated with all six creative perfor-mance dimensions. The correlation analyses supported the inferencesdiscussed in the literature review, indicating that postformal thinkingmay be related to creativity and could facilitate the development ofnatural forms of creativity.

In terms of creativity, the postformal thinkers consistently outscoredthe formal thinkers in all six dimensions of creativity. The group differ-ence results were consistent with Pearson's correlation analysis re-sults, indicating that postformal thinking and creative performancemay exhibit parallel developmental relationships. In addition, multiple

246

discriminant analysis showed that six creative dimensions could bedistinguished between the two groups of cognitive thinkers. However,because this study used a cross-sectional design, we could not deter-mine the direction of causality between cognitive development andcreativity. The influence of postformal thinking in late adolescence oncreativity could be a necessary, but not sufficient, condition. If so, thecognitive development of late adolescents who exhibit high creativeperformance should be postformal thinking.

Future studies may employ a cross-lagged panel design (Cook &Campbell, 1979), in which postformal thinking and creative perfor-mance would be tested at two different points in time to explore thecausal relations between cognitive development and creativity. Thetwo separate testing times must be distant enough to reveal significantdevelopmental change. A cross-examination of the panel coefficientsmight determine the causal relations between postformal thinking de-velopment and creativity in late adolescence. In addition, we mightadopt a developmental approach to explore other questions central tocreativity in late adolescence. For example, does the development ofother realms (affective development, acquisition of expertise in specificdomains, wisdom) also affect creative functioning and performance?How does adolescent creativity differ from creativity in adulthood orchildhood? What experiences contribute to the maturation of creativityin late adolescence?

Kahlbaugh and Kramer (1995) employed the Likert version of SPBIand Kramer's Paradigm Interview (KPI; Kramer, 1990) to explore therelationship between relativism and identity crisis in young adulthood.However, KPI and SPBI scores did not correspond, and the associationbetween relativism (SPBI) and identity was not replicated in inter-views. This discrepancy between measures suggests that the methodemployed to assess cognitive development is critical. In the presentstudy, only the forced-choice version of SPBI was used. To avoid amono-method bias that might threaten construct validity, we may inthe future employ multiple formats or methods to assess cognitivedevelopment in late adolescence. To draw unambiguous conclusionsfrom interviews, the amount of verbal output must be controlled orsystematically tested.

In conclusion, our findings support the appropriateness of employingpost-Piagetian genetic epistemological and constructivist perspectivesto explore the relationship between cognitive development and creativ-ity among late adolescents. Our study supported the possible relation-ship of postformal thinking to creativity and suggests that cognitivedevelopment and creativity are related in late adolescence. The devel-

247

opment of postfonnal thinking would facilitate the development of ma-ture forms of creativity because postformal thinking tends to view theprocess of thinking as creative. In short, postformal thinking empha-sizes and encourages factors that have heen described as important tothe essence of creativity.

The pedagogical implications of this study are based on post-Piage-tian genetic epistemology. Our results suggest a developmentally par-allel relationship between postformal thinking and overall creativeperformance. In teaching creativity^ the post-Piagetian constructivistepistemological position emphasizes cognitive development as cogni-tive reorganization (Piaget, 1980). New forms of creative activity arebased on old forms and are generated by reorganizing prior forms andusing them to expand previous creative activities, leading to creativeevolution. Thus, basing the teaching of creativity on Piagetian geneticepistemology would provide adolescent creators with activities de-signed to develop novel and valuable epistemic views. Thus, any teach-ing activity aimed at raising the level of creative thinking must occurwithin an individual's "zone of potential creation," as Piagetian peda-gogy holds that subsequent knowledge must be based on prior knowl-edge and is limited by the basic assumptions of prior knowledge(Kramer, 1989; Piaget, 1985). The zone of potential creation refers toan adaptable area of creative activity within the learner's current stageof creative thinking. Educators can also provide activities stressingpostfonnal operations to stimulate mature forms of creativity. For ex-ample, a relativistic or dialectical view of objects and events couldfoster awareness of novelty and relationships. A postformal view ofknowledge is likely to foster habits of thought that promote set-break-ing, attention to contradictions, and attempts at synthesis, all of whichare important features of the creative process. The development of acoherent metasystematic perspective may provide the cognitive opera-tions that are necessary to consciously manage an interrelated, evolv-ing system, one that Gruber (1984) suggests is characteristic of mature,sustained creative efforts. Finally, educators should encourage stu-dents to reflect on the transformation of their own categories of creativeactivity in order to better understand that forms of thinking change,and to recognize key processes in reorganization.

Using the results of this study as an exemplar, educators or research-ers can further explore the relationship between cognitive developmentand creative thinking in different disciplines. Research into individualcognitive and creative thinking development could provide new in-sights into creativity education through the use of a fresh perspective,one that differs from psychometric or creative process approaches. A

248

structural-developmental approach allows developmental psychologyand creative thinking pedagogy to create a dialogue, one that couldlead to creative disciplinary integration; it could also open the door tomore pro-active approaches to the study of creativity, approaches thatcould go beyond merely marveling at, or measuring, creativity.

REFERENCES

Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York:Springer-Verlag.

Arlin, P. K. (1984). Adolescent and adult thought. In M. L. Commons, F. A.Richards, & C. Armon (Eds.), Beyond formal operations: Late adolescentand adult cognitive development (pp. 258-271). New York: Praeger.

Basseches, M. (1980). Dialectical schemata: A framework for the empiricalstudy of the development of dialectical thinking. Human Development23, 400-421.

Basseches, M. (1984). Dialectical thinking and adult development. Norwood,NJ: Ablex.

Basseches, M. (1989). Dialectical thinking as an organized whole: Commentson Irwin and Kramer. In M. L. Commons, J. D. Sinnott, F. A. Richards, &C. Armon (Eds.), Adult development: Comparisons and applications ofdevelopmental models (pp. 161-178). New York: Praeger.

Benack, S. (1984). Postformal epistemologies and the growth of empathy. InM. L. Commons, F. A. Richards, & C. Armon (Eds.), Beyond formal opera-tions: Late adolescent and adult cognitive development (pp. 340-356).New York: Praeger.

Chiou, W. (in press). College students' role models, learning style preferences,and academic achievement in collaborative teaching: Absolute thinkingversus relativistic thinking. Adolescence.

Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-Experimentation. Boston, MA:Houghton Mifflin.

Gruber, H. E. (1984). The emergence of a sense of purpose: A cognitive casestudy of young Darwin. In M. L. Commons, F. A. Richards, & C. Armon(Eds.), Beyond formal operations: Late adolescent and adult cognitivedevelopment (pp. 3-27). New York: Praeger.

Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York:Harper & Row.

Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariatedata analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Kahlbaugh, P. E. (1989). WilUam James: A clarification of the contextualworldview. In D. A. Kramer & M. J. Bopp (Eds.), Transformation inclinical and developmental psychology (pp. 73-88). New York:Springer-Verlag.

Kahlbaugh, P. E., & Kramer, D. A. (1995). Relativism and identity crisis inyoung adulthood. Journal of Adult Development, 2, 63-70.

King, P. M., Kitchener, K. S., Davison, M. L., Parker, C. A., & Wood, P. K.(1983). The justification of beliefs in young adults: A longitudinal study.Human Development, 26, 106-115.

249

Koestler, A. (1964). The art of creation. New York: Macmillan.Koplowitz, H. (1984). A projection beyond Piaget's formal-operations stage.

In M. L. Commons, F. A. Richards, & C. Armon (Eds.), Beyond formaloperations: Late adolescence and adult cognitive development (pp.272-295). New York: Praeger.

Kramer, D. A. (1983). Post-formal operations? A need for further conceptual-ization. Human Development, 26, 91-105.

Kramer, D. A. (1989). A developmental framework for understanding conflictresolution processes. In J. D. Sinnott (Ed.), Everyday problem solving inadulthood (pp. 133-152). New York: Praeger.

Kramer, D. A. (1990). A scoring manual for assessing absolute, relativistic, anddialectical thinking. New Bnmswick, NJ: Rutgers, The State Universityof New Jersey.

Kramer, D. A., & Melchior, J. (1990). Gender, role, conflict, and the develop-ment of relativistic and dialectical thinking. Sex Roles, 23, 553-575.

Kramer, D. A., & Woodruff, D. S. (1986). Relativistic and dialectical thoughtin three adult age-groups. Human Development, 29, 280-290.

Kramer, D. A., Kahlbaugh, P. E., & Goldston, R. B. (1992). A measure ofparadigm beliefs about the social world. Journal of Gerontology, 47,180-189.

Labouvie-Vief, G. (1982). Dynamic development and mature autonomy. A theo-retical prologue. Human Development, 25, 161-196.

Lin, C, & Wang, M. (1994). The Creativity Assessment Packet. Taipei, Taiwan:Psychological Publishing Company.

Manzo, A. V. (1992, December). Dialectical thinking: A generative approach tocritical/creative thinking. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of theNational Reading Conference, San Antonio, TX.

Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the collegeyears: A scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Piaget, J. (1950). The psychology of intelligence. New York: International Uni-versities P*ress.

Piaget, J. (1980). Experiments in contradictions. Chicago, IL: University ofChicago Press.

Piaget, J. (1985). The equilibration of cognitive structures (B. Terrance & K.J. Thampy, Trans.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Ross, R. J. (1977). The development of formal thinking and creativity in adoles-cents. Adolescence, 11, 609-617.

Rothenberg, A. (1976). The process of Janusian thinking in creativity. In A.Rothenberg & C. R. Hausman (Eds.), The creativity question. Durham,NC: Duke University Press.

Rothenberg, A., & Hausman, C. R. (1976). The creativity question. Durham,NC: Duke University Press.

Rybash, J. M., & Roodin, P. A. (1989). Making decisions about health-careproblems: A comparison of formal and postformEil modes of competence.In M. L. Commons, J. D. Sinnott, F. A. Richards, & C. Armon (Eds.),Adult development: Comparisons and applications of developmentalmodels (pp. 217-238). New York: Praeger.

Sebby, R. A., & Papini, D. R. (1994). Postformal reasoning during adolescenceand young adulthood: The influence of problem relevancy. Adolescence,29, 389-400.

250

Sinnott, J. D. (1981). The theory of relativity: A metatheory for development?Human Development, 24, 292-311.

Sinnott, J. D. (1984). Postformal reasoning: The relativistic stage In M LCommons, F. A. Richards, & C. Armon (Ed^.), Beyond formal operations:Late adolescent and adult cognitive development (pp. 298-325). NewYork: Praeger.

Sinnott, J. D. (1989). A model for solution of ill-structured problems: Implica-tions for everyday and abstract problem solving. In J. D. Sinnott (Ed )Everyday problem solving: Theory and applications (pp. 72-99) NewYork: Praeger.

Stemberg, R. J. (2001). What is the common thread of creativity? Its dialecticalrelation to intelligence and wisdom. American Psychologist, 56, 360-362

Torrance, E. P. (1962). Guiding creative talent. Englewood Cliffs NJ- Pren-tice-Hall.

Torrance, E. P. (1966). Torrance tests of creative thinking: Norms-technicalmanual (Research Ed.). Princeton, NJ: Personnel Press.

251