This article was downloaded by: [Alma Mater Studiorum - Università di Bologna]On: 21 November 2011, At: 01:08Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Creativity Research JournalPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hcrj20

Motor Creativity and Creative Thinking in Children: TheDiverging Role of InhibitionPatrizia Scibinetti a , Nicoletta Tocci a & Caterina Pesce ba Department of Education in Sport and Human Motion, Italian University Sport andMovementb Department of Human Motion and Sport Science, Italian University Sport and Movement

Available online: 05 Aug 2011

To cite this article: Patrizia Scibinetti, Nicoletta Tocci & Caterina Pesce (2011): Motor Creativity and Creative Thinking inChildren: The Diverging Role of Inhibition, Creativity Research Journal, 23:3, 262-272

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2011.595993

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form toanyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses shouldbe independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Motor Creativity and Creative Thinking in Children:The Diverging Role of Inhibition

Patrizia Scibinetti and Nicoletta Tocci

Department of Education in Sport and Human Motion, Italian University Sport andMovement

Caterina Pesce

Department of Human Motion and Sport Science, Italian University Sport and Movement

This study investigated the commonalities and differences between motor creativity andcreative thinking in children and how executive functions differently influence them.Thirty-one children, aged 7 to 8 years, were administered Bertsch Test of Motor Crea-tivity, Torrance Test of Creative Thinking, the Random Number Generation (RNG)task tapping executive functions, and the Movement Assessment Battery for Children(M-ABC). Scores for three dimensions of motor creativity and creative thinking (flu-ency, flexibility, and originality), selected indexes of executive function (inhibition andworking memory updating) and motor competence scores were submitted to correla-tional and regression analyses. Results showed that there is no association betweenmotor creativity and motor competence, but a significant association between creativemoving and thinking for all their dimensions except for originality. Moreover, orig-inality in thinking was predicted by low inhibitory ability, although originality in mov-ing by high inhibitory ability. Results suggested that there are commonalities in theprocesses responsible for the fluent and flexible production of creative thoughts andmovements, whereas there was a domain-specificity as concerns the role played byinhibitory functions in the production of original solutions during creative moving.

The on-going debate on whether creativity is a generalability applying similarly across content areas or a setof abilities tailored to specific disciplines and tasks iscontinuing in more recent research with considerableimplications for creativity theory, assessment, and edu-cational practices (Lubart & Guignard, 2004; Plucker& Zabelina, 2009; Runco, 1987). Two recent hybridmodels have shifted attention to the question of whatcomponents are general and what components are spe-cific or when they become specific (Baer & Kaufman,2005; Plucker & Beghetto, 2004). According to Pluckerand Beghetto’s (2005) developmental perspective,domain and task specificity of creativity become morepronounced with advancing age and with gains in

experience that, in turn, generally result from an exten-sive commitment to the domain and=or tasks of interest.The model by Baer and Kaufman (2005), theAmusement Park Theory (APT), is a hierarchic modelthat starts from general requirements for all creativeachievements and moves thorough progressively morespecific levels: general thematic areas (e.g., hands-oncreativity), domains (e.g., motor or bodily-kinaestheticcreativity) and microdomains or specific tasks (e.g.,gross-motor or fine-motor tasks).

MOTOR AND SPORTS CREATIVITY

Creative behavior plays a key role in the performanceof many sports. When considering the diverging psy-chomotor and cognitive demands that characterize dif-ferent sports, however, one can assume that creativity is

Correspondence should be sent to Patrizia Scibinetti, Italian

University Sport and Movement–IUSM, Piazza L. De Bosis 15,

00135 Rome, Italy. E-mail: patrizia.scibinetti@uniroma4.it

CREATIVITY RESEARCH JOURNAL, 23(3), 262–272, 2011

Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 1040-0419 print=1532-6934 online

DOI: 10.1080/10400419.2011.595993

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Alm

a M

ater

Stu

dior

um -

Uni

vers

ità d

i Bol

ogna

] at

01:

08 2

1 N

ovem

ber

2011

highly task-specific within this domain. The ability toproduce creative movements and actions may largelydiffer, for instance, when an individual is faced withthe conditions characterizing dance during individualor contact improvisation (Fink, Graif & Neubauer,2009; Torrents, Castaner, Dinusova, & Anguera,2010), or with the conditions characterizing teamgames, where the environment is constantly changingand unpredictable and there is limited time to makedecisions and produce unexpected, original solutions(Memmert, 2007, 2009; Memmert & Roth, 2007).Although sports, and particularly team games, offerthe possibility to analyze creative performances involv-ing complex motor behaviors, Memmert (2007, 2009)and Memmert and Roth (2007) did not address thequestion at what extent motor creativity and creativethinking contribute to creative actions such as tacticalbehaviors in team sports.

Apart from sport-related creativity research, studiesexamining motor creativity are scarce as compared tothe large amount of creativity research focused on cre-ative thinking (see Kim, 2006 for a review). Further-more, confounding is generated by the fact that ithas still not clearly defined whether measures obtainedwith tests of creativity in moving are measures ofdomain-specific creativity or movement-based measuresof creative thinking. Motor fluency and flexibility mea-sures obtained with the divergent movement ability(DMA) test, evaluating the ability to perform and mod-ify fundamental motor patterns, have been referred to asmeasures of motor creativity, but also as indicative ele-ments of divergent and critical thinking (Cleland, 1994;Konstantinidou, Pollatou, & Zachopoulou, 2005;Trevlas, Matsouka, & Zachopoulou, 2003). On theother hand, the Torrance Thinking Creatively in Actionand Movement (TCAM) test (Torrance, 1981), that wasoriginally designed to sample children’s creative think-ing abilities by means of measures obtained inmovement-based creativity tasks, is highly correlatedwith the DMA performance outcomes (Zachopoulou,Makri, & Pollatou, 2009) and has been used as a mea-sure of specific motor creativity (Konstantinidou et al.,2005). Moreover, few studies have investigated whethermotor creativity in childhood may be also influenced byage-related stages of motor development (Tocci,Scibinetti, & Zelli, 2004; Zachopoulou & Macri, 2005).Thus, the degree of differentiation between creativethinking and moving in children is an issue in need forfurther research.

The general aim of this study was to contributefurther to the understanding of the general versus spe-cific aspects of being creative by jointly analyzing motorcreativity and creative thinking in children. There is evi-dence of a close parallelism in the development of motorcoordination and higher-level cognitive functions, as

well as in the maturation of neural substrates in thecerebellum and prefrontal cortex involved in creativethinking (Delis et al., 2007; Diamond, 2000; Vandervert,Schimpf & Liu, 2007). Also, the cerebellum seems to beimportant for both motor and cognitive functions and isconsidered a computational system contributing to theefficiency and adaptability of movements and thoughts(Vandervert et al., 2007). Therefore, it may be expectedthat there are some commonalities between motor crea-tivity and creative thinking in children. On the otherside, there seems to be little overlap in the processesunderlying motor ability and creativity-relevant,higher-level cognitive functions in children (Piek &Dyck, 2004); thus, we also hypothesized that some dis-tinct cognitive processes might underlie creative perfor-mances in thinking and moving.

The Development of Creativity and ExecutiveFunction

Creativity has been associated to higher-level cognitivefunctions—particularly to the executive—and tests ofcreative thinking are assumed to reflect such functions(e.g., Naglieri & Kaufman, 2001). Executive functionis an umbrella term for a set of component processes,such as planning, scheduling, working memory, andinhibition, required for the successful regulation ofthoughts and goal-directed, intelligent behaviorsespecially in nonroutine situations. The developmentof executive functions occurs throughout childhoodand continues until young adulthood (Best et al.,2009) with distinct developmental trajectories for thedifferent executive function component processes(Huizinga et al., 2006).

Neurobiological models of executive function havehighlighted the key role played by the frontal and parti-cularly prefrontal cortex (e.g., Banich, 2009) and theclose linkage between the development of executivefunctions and the refinement of prefrontal cortical net-works (Diamond, 2002). Also, creativity requires thatkind of executive abilities that are typically ascribed tothe prefrontal cortex (Bekhtereva, Dan’ko, Starchenko,Pakhomov, & Medvedev, 2001). In his neuroscientificframework of creativity, Dietrich (2004) suggested thatthe prefrontal cortex contributes to the creative processin three ways: evaluating the appropriateness of a novelinsight, activating executive processes relevant to theongoing task, and implementing the goal-orientedexpression of the insight. In studies on motor creativity,it has still not been investigated what role is played byexecutive functions. Thus, the second aim of this studywas to assess whether inhibition and working memoryupdating, which are involved in creative thinking(Dietrich, 2004), are similarly or differently involved inmotor creativity.

CREATIVE MOVING AND THINKING AND INHIBITION 263

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Alm

a M

ater

Stu

dior

um -

Uni

vers

ità d

i Bol

ogna

] at

01:

08 2

1 N

ovem

ber

2011

METHOD

Participants

Thirty-one healthy male (n¼ 19) and female (n¼ 12)Italian children aged 7–8 years belonging to a primaryschool in Rome participated in this study. The parentsof all children who volunteered provided writteninformed consent for their children to be involved in astudy in which they would perform paper-and-penciltests and motor performance tests that were enjoyableand appropriate for their age. The study protocol wasstarted after institutional approval.

Assessment of Motor Creativity

Children’s motor creativity was assessed by using thetest developed and validated for primary school childrenby Bertsch (1983). This test provides measurements ofmotor creativity by means of two separate versions(form A and B) composed of four tasks each to be per-formed on the floor, with a bench, a hoop or a ball,respectively. Although the four tasks vary from mainlygross motor (floor, bench) to mainly fine motor (hoop,ball) coordination demands, the two forms vary in thedegrees of freedom of the movement tasks, with formA providing no specific performance modality and formB partially defining it. For instance, to perform thebench task in its form A, children standing in front ofthe bench are free to do anything they want for a certainperiod of time. In the form B of the bench task, they areinstead constrained not to loose body contact with thebench while freely moving around it. In the presentstudy, we selected form B in line with general recom-mendations by Torrance (1988) on how to study thecreativity process. Each child participated individuallyto the four motor creativity tasks in randomized orderduring school hours for a total test duration of about30min. The tasks lasted 2min and 30 sec (hoop andfloor) or 3min (ball and bench). Children who stoppedperforming were encouraged to stay on task by prompt-ing them again to follow the original instructions,described in the following for each task and ending withthe common sentence: ‘‘Try to find ways that are orig-inal and that other children may not think about.’’ Dur-ing each task, two trained observers independentlyreported children’s behaviors in a written form on separ-ate observation sheets. The two observers participatedto training sessions to reach adequate interobserveragreement rates.

Hoop. Two parallel lines were put at a distance of3.50m. Children were asked to carry a hoop and movefrom one line to the other in whatever way they wanted.The verbal instruction was: ‘‘Your task is to move the

hoop from one line to the other. You can let it go onits own or take it with you. Show me anything youcan do that comes to mind.’’

Ball. Children were situated in the middle of a squaremeasuring 2.50m on each side. Their task was to use aball to hit, one at a time, seven 1� 1m large targetson the wall, floor, or ceiling areas outside the square.The child was free to use the ball in whatever way heor she wanted. The verbal instruction was: ‘‘You seeall the targets around you. Imagine they are glasses.Imagine breaking them with this ball without goingout of your home (i.e., the square). What’s importantis not so much to break all the glasses but to try to breakthem every time in a different way.’’

Bench. A bench was located in the middle of a roomand two hoops were positioned at the two ends of thebench representing the starting and arrival point,respectively. The verbal instruction was: ‘‘You have togo from one hoop to the other and back, keeping a partof your body always in contact with the bench.’’ Thechild was free to perform the task in any way he orshe could think of.

Floor. Two parallel lines delimited a 2.50squared-meter area on the floor. The verbal instructionwas: ‘‘Your task is to move from one line to the other.You are free to do anything you want between thesetwo lines. Show me all possible ways you know or thatmay come to your mind to do that.’’

The test has an acceptable internal consistency, asindexed by the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient across thefour tasks (a¼ .76). Thus, the Bertsch test providesreliable measures of individual differences in children’smotor creativity.

Data coding and scoring. Only those motor beha-viors that were clearly recorded by both observers werecoded by a previously trained investigator. Data codingconsisted in assigning scores on three separate dimen-sions, namely fluency, flexibility, and originality. Flu-ency was scored in terms of the number of differentbehaviors displayed by the child during each motor task.Flexibility and originality were instead coded and scoredby means of scoring schemes developed by Bertsch(1983) on the basis of normative data obtained withhis initial observation of nearly 7,000 different behaviorsin children. Flexibility was scored referring to movementbehavior categories identified by Bertsch for eachtask (16 for the hoop and the ball tasks, 44 for thebench task, and 36 for the floor task). Such categoriessummarize motor behaviors as a function of body

264 SCIBINETTI, TOCCI, AND PESCE

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Alm

a M

ater

Stu

dior

um -

Uni

vers

ità d

i Bol

ogna

] at

01:

08 2

1 N

ovem

ber

2011

position, movement direction and type. The flexibilityscore is the sum of the categories for which at leastone behavior was observed, categories with two or moreobserved behaviors being counted only once. Originalitywas quantified assigning a score ranging from 0 (loworiginality) to 3 (high originality) to each behavior ineach category on the basis of the relative frequency ofsuch behavior in Bertsch’s normative sample. The flu-ency, flexibility, and originality scores for each motortask were standardized. To obtain a total score for eachcreativity dimension, standardized scores obtained fromthe four tasks were added.

Assessment of creative thinking. The Italian ver-sion of the Torrance (1989) Test of Creative Thinking(TTCT), Figural Form A was group administered atschool. The TTCT Figural Form A is designed for indi-viduals in kindergarten through graduate school andbeyond. It consists of three timed pencil-and-paper pic-ture construction and completion activities lasting10min each, with 1-min breaks between tasks, for a totalworking time of about 30min. According to testingguidelines, the administrator invited the examinees toenjoy these activities and created a playfulproblem-solving atmosphere to minimize threateningfeelings linked to a performance-oriented climate.

Activity I: Picture construction task. Children hadto construct a picture using a darkened curve shape(jellybean or teardrop) provided on the page as astimulus which must be integrated in the pictureconstruction.

Activity II: Picture completion. Children had to use10 incomplete figures to make a figure or object draw-ings to the incomplete figures, avoiding usual and obvi-ous completions.

Activity III: Parallel lines. Children had to use 30pairs of straight lines drawn on three pages to makean original picture out of each pair of lines, overcomingthe tendency to perceive the same stimuli in the sameway.

Data coding and scoring. Scoring of the TTCT wasperformed by a trained investigator based on three sub-scales of norm-referenced measures: fluency, flexibility,and originality. Although in the third edition of theTTCT (Torrance & Ball, 1984), the measure of flexibilitywas eliminated because of its too high correlation withfluency, in the present study we maintained it to performa comparison with the corresponding dimension of

motor creativity. Instead, we did not include the mea-sure of elaboration and two further measures of creativepotential that were added in the third edition (abstract-ness of titles and resistance to premature change),because they were not pertinent to the comparison withcreativity measures in the motor domain that includedonly fluidity, flexibility, and originality (Bertsch,1983). Fluency was scored by the number of figuralimages produced by the examinees; it reflects the abilityto generate a large amount of relevant ideas. Flexibilitywas scored by the variety of categories of relevantresponses. Originality was scored by the number ofstatistically infrequent responses on the basis of norma-tive data; it reflects the ability to produce uncommonor unique ideas. According to the TTCT manual,raw scores were converted into standard scores tohave comparable ranges for fluidity, flexibility, andoriginality.

Assessment of Executive Function

The Random Number Generation (RNG) task is a testtapping executive functions (Towse & Neil, 1998). Forthis study, we used the version first employed by Towseand McIachlan (1999), demonstrating the feasibility ofthe RNG task with children. The children were testedindividually on a quiet area of school, with the RNGtask being introduced as a game involving numbers.They were instructed to verbally generate a randomsequence of numbers between 1 and 10 to each beatof a 70-beat sequence with an interbeat interval of 1.5seconds. To offer children an age-appropriate, easilyunderstandable example of what randomness is, theinstruction included a hide-and-seek type of game(Towse & McIachlan, 1999). Prior to data collection,participants performed a practice series of 70 numbers.Then, there was a pause of about 45–50 sec, duringwhich they were allowed to ask questions concerningthe test. Thereafter, they generated a second series of70 numbers that were recorded on a tape. Both theomission of a number generation in correspondenceof one tone and the production of numbers lower than1 (0) or higher than 10 (11, 12, etc.) were considerederrors and discarded. If errors exceeded a predefinedmaximum threshold of five, the entire block must berepeated. The randomness of the sequence of numberswas measured by means of 18 different indexesdescribed by Towse and Neil. Among those, we selectedsix indexes reflecting two creativity-relevant compo-nents of executive function: executive inhibition, whichseems to have a differentiated impact on convergentand divergent thinking (White & Shah, 2006) andworking memory updating, which is strictly involvedin creative problem solving (Passolunghi & Pazzaglia,2004).

CREATIVE MOVING AND THINKING AND INHIBITION 265

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Alm

a M

ater

Stu

dior

um -

Uni

vers

ità d

i Bol

ogna

] at

01:

08 2

1 N

ovem

ber

2011

Computation of Indexes of Randomness

The three indexes theoretically related to the inhibitingfunction were the turning point index (TPI), the adjac-ency score (A comb), and the runs score (Runs). TheTPI is a measure of the similarity between the real fre-quency of turning points, marking a change betweenascending and descending series of numbers (e.g., theresponse change between the digits 2 and 5 in an hypo-thetical sequence ‘‘9, 7, 2, 5, 6, 8’’) and their theoreticalfrequency in random responses. The A comb measuresthe relative frequency of pairs of adjacent ascending ordescending numbers (e.g., 7–8 or 4–3) and reflects thehabitual tendency to count forward or backward. TheRuns score is an index the variability of the number ofdigits in successive ascending or descending runs. Highlevels of TPI, but low levels of A comb and Runscorrespond to a high ability to inhibit, avoiding theproduction of stereotyped strings and prepotentassociates.

The three indexes related to the working memoryupdating function were the redundancy score (R), thecoupon score (Coupon), and the mean repetition gap(Mean RG). The R index reflects the unbalance ofresponse alternative frequencies that derives from amore frequent usage of given numbers, as compared toothers in a sequence of generated numbers based onthe theoretical frequencies of each digit. The Couponscore designates the number of digits generated untilthe entire set of digits alternatives (1 to 10) has beenused. The Mean RG is the average quantity of digitsbetween successive occurrences of the same number cal-culated for all digits throughout the whole sequence(e.g., in the sequence ‘‘2, 8, 4, 6, 2, 9, 7, 8,’’ the digits2 and 8 reoccur with a mean gap equal to 5). High levelsof Mean RG, but low levels of R and Coupon corre-spond to a high ability to update working memoryand employ equality of responses by using preferentiallyalternation among numbers.

Assessment of Movement Competence

Children’s movement competence was estimated bymeans of the Italian version of the movement assess-ment battery for children (M-ABC) developed byHenderson and Sudgen (1992). This test evaluates move-ment competence providing objective quantitative dataon both gross motor and fine motor coordination ofchildren aged from 4 to 12 years with eight tasks differ-entiated in four age-related difficulty levels. The tasksare grouped under three subheadings: manual dexterity,ball skills, and static and dynamic balance.

Manual dexterity. The three tasks evaluating manualdexterity in 7- to 8-year-old children were placing pegs,

threading lace, and flower trail. In the placing pegs task,the child must place 12 plastic pegs, one at a time, in allholes on a board. In the threading lace task, the childmust thread a lace back and forth through the holes ina lacing board. In the flower trail task, the child mustdraw, with the preferred hand, one continuous line fol-lowing the flower trail on a record form without crossingits boundaries. In the formal trials of placing pegs andthreading lace, the examiner measured the seconds takento complete each task. In the flower trail task, the exam-iner recorded the number of errors, i.e., the number oftimes the drawn lines moves outside a boundary.

Ball skills. The two tasks evaluating ball skills in 7-to 8-year-old children were one-hand bounce and catchand throwing a bean bag into a box. In the first task,the child must bounce a tennis ball on the floor andcatch it with the same hand. In the throwing a beanbag into a box task, the child must throw the beanbag into a target box. In both types of tasks, the exam-iner recorded the number of correctly executed trials(successful catches and throws, respectively) out of 10attempts.

Static and dynamic balance. The task evaluatingstatic balance in 7- to 8-year-old children was the storkbalance, and the tasks evaluating dynamic balance werethe jumping in squares task and heel-to-toe walking. Instork balancing, the child must stand on one foot, placethe sole of the other foot against the side of the support-ing knee, and put the hands on the hips. The examinerrecords the number of seconds, up to 20, that the childmaintained balance without moving the standing andthe nonstanding foot. In jumping in squares, the childhad to make five continuous jumps forward from astarting square to further five squares. The examinerrecorded the number of correct and consecutive jumpscompleted over five without performance errors suchas landing on or outside the lines, jumping more thanonce in a square and landing with the feet far apart.In heel-to-toe walking, the child had to walk on a lineplacing the heel of one foot against the toe of the otherfor 15 steps. The examiner recorded the number of con-secutive steps performed by the child without leavingspace between toe and heel or stepping off the line.

Data coding and scoring. The M-ABC data werestandardized to compute average scores for the threesubheadings of manual dexterity, ball skills, and staticand dynamic balance. The data were also transformedinto a total score of impairment of motor functionaccording to age-related norms (Henderson & Sudgen,1992). The score indicates the extent to which a child

266 SCIBINETTI, TOCCI, AND PESCE

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Alm

a M

ater

Stu

dior

um -

Uni

vers

ità d

i Bol

ogna

] at

01:

08 2

1 N

ovem

ber

2011

falls below the level of his or her age peers, although itdoes not differentiate between children who performabove this level.

RESULTS

To identify eventual commonalities between motor crea-tivity and creative thinking, we first estimated thestrength of a linear relationship by computing bivariatecorrelations (Pearson’s r) between scores for three com-mon dimensions shared by the tests of motor creativityand creative thinking: fluency, flexibility, and orig-inality. Results show a moderate, but significant positivecorrelation between fluencies (r¼ .451, p¼ .005) andflexibilities (r¼ .489, p¼ .003), but an absence ofsignificant correlation between originalities (r¼ .088,p¼ .320).

To analyze the predictive value of creative thinkingand cognitive developmental factors for creative motorperformance, fluency, flexibility and originality scoresin the motor domain were submitted to three separate2-block hierarchical regression analyses. The predictorswere: Torrance scores for fluency, flexibility, and orig-inality (first block); RNG indexes of executive function-ing (inhibition—TPI, A comb, and Runs—and workingmemory updating—R, Coupon, and mean RG; secondblock). The logic of this heuristic hierarchical model dis-tinguishes between the impact of more proximal vari-ables, represented by dimensions of creative thinkingparalleling those of motor creativity, and more distalfactors, represented by executive functions. In thisway, any domain-specific predictive value of executivefunctions for motor creativity, if given, may be identified

controlling for or partialling out the commonalitiesbetween motor creativity and creative thinking.

The results showed a high collinearity between flu-ency and flexibility in creative thinking, confirming thatthe two measures do not reflect two independent dimen-sions (Kim, 2006). Thus, flexibility, showing the highestcollinearity (VIF statistic¼ 11), was eliminated from theregression model and the three regressions were rerun.The results are reported in Table 1. The table showsthe predictors’ statistically significant regression coeffi-cients and the amount of variance explained (R2 andR2 change) associated with each regression block. Flu-ency in creative thinking significantly predicted fluencyand originality and, marginally significantly, flexibilityof performances in the motor creativity test. As regardsthe prediction accrued by indexes of executive functions,only the regression model performed on originalityscores yielded a significant percentage of varianceexplained by the three inhibition indices.

To assess further whether creative thinking andmotor creativity are supported by some distinct cogni-tive processes relying on executive function, also fluency,flexibility, and originality scores in creative thinkingwere regressed on the six indices of inhibition and mem-ory updating functions.

Also in this case, the regression model performed onoriginality scores (Table 2) showed a significant predic-tion accrued by the three inhibition indexes. However,the opposite signs of standardized b statistics obtainedwhen regressing inhibition indexes against originalitymeasures in moving (Table 1) and thinking (Table 2)indicate diverging associations of inhibitory functionswith originality in motor and nonmotor domains. Forease of graphic representation, the three indexes of

TABLE 1

Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis Model of Fluency, Flexibility, and Originality in Creative Moving as a Function of Fluency and Originality

in Creative Thinking and of Executive Functioning (Inhibition—TPI, A Comb, and Runs—and Working Memory Updating—R, Coupon, Mean RG)

Fluency in Moving Flexibility in Moving Originality in Moving

Beta (Std.) t p Beta (Std.) t p Beta (Std.) t p

Factors in Block 1

Fluency in thinking .69 2.10 .048 .64 1.82 .083 .69 2.10 .048

Originality in thinking n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.

R2 .37 .45 .36

Factors in Block 2

Inhibition—TPI n.s. n.s n.s n.s. n.s. n.s. .59 2.71 .013

Inhibition—A comb n.s. n.s n.s n.s. n.s. n.s. �.83 �3.24 .004

Inhibition—Runs n.s. n.s n.s n.s. n.s. n.s. �.41 �2.05 .050

Memory updating—R n.s. n.s n.s n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.

Memory updating—Coupon n.s. n.s n.s n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.

Memory updating—Mean RG n.s. n.s n.s n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.

R2 change .17 .13 .27

Total R2¼ .54 Total R2¼ .58 Total R2¼ .63

Adjusted R2¼ .35 Adjusted R2¼ .39 Adjusted R2¼ .47

Note. Flexibility in thinking was excluded because of too high collinearity with fluency.

CREATIVE MOVING AND THINKING AND INHIBITION 267

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Alm

a M

ater

Stu

dior

um -

Uni

vers

ità d

i Bol

ogna

] at

01:

08 2

1 N

ovem

ber

2011

inhibitory ability (TPI, A comb, and Runs) were stan-dardized and merged into an average index. Before aver-aging, since high TPI values reflect high inhibitoryability, although high A comb and Runs values reflectlow inhibitory ability, A comb and Runs values werereversed. In Figures 1 and 2, originality values in motorcreativity and creative thinking, respectively, are graphi-cally represented as a function of the global index ofinhibitory function.

We also performed correlational analyses to controlfor the potential influence of individual differences infundamental gross-motor and fine-motor skills onmotor creativity task performances primarily involvingeither gross-motor or fine-motor skills. Specifically, wecomputed bivariate correlations between gross-motorcreativity task performances (i.e., bench and floor) andgross-motor M-ABC tasks performances (i.e., balance),as well as between fine-motor creativity task perfor-mances (i.e., ball and hoop) and M-ABC fine motor taskperformances (manual dexterity and ball skills).

We did not find any significant correlations. A totalimpairment score was computed for each child

according to the normative data by Henderson andSudgen (1992). The average score was 1.3 (�1.8, range0–7.5), corresponding to the 84th–86th percentile. Nochild fell below the critical threshold of motor develop-mental impairment corresponding to the 5th percentile(score¼ 13.5) or below the threshold of borderlinemotor developmental level represented by the 15th per-centile (score¼ 10.0).

DISCUSSION

The aim of this study was to assess if there are common-alities and=or divergences between motor creativity andcreative thinking in children and what role is played bycreativity-relevant executive functions in the productionof creative movements and thoughts. On the whole, theresults give some support to middle-ground modelspositioned between domain generality and specificity(Amabile, 1996; Baer & Kaufman, 2005; Plucker &Beghetto, 2004; Sternberg & Lubart, 1995) and suggestthat there is a differentiated influence of inhibitory

TABLE 2

Multiple Regression Analysis Model of Fluency, Flexibility and Originality in Creative Thinking as a Function of Executive Functioning (Inhibition—

TPI, A comb, and Runs—and Working Memory Updating—R, Coupon, Mean RG)

Fluency in Thinking Flexibility in Thinking Originality in Thinking

Beta (Std.) t p Beta (Std.) t p Beta (Std.) T p

Inhibition—TPI n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. �.52 �2.57 .040

Inhibition—A comb n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. .59 2.40 .024

Inhibition—Runs n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. .47 2.41 .024

Memory updating—R n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.

Memory updating—Coupon n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.

Memory updating—mean RG n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.

Total R2¼ .23 Total R2¼ .18 R2¼ .36

Adjusted R2¼ .03 Adjusted R2¼�.02 Adjusted R2¼ .20

FIGURE 1 Graphical representation of originality in motor creativity (Bertsch test) as a function of the global index of inhibitory function derived

from TPI, A comb, and Runs indexes (RNG test). (Figure is provided in color online.)

268 SCIBINETTI, TOCCI, AND PESCE

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Alm

a M

ater

Stu

dior

um -

Uni

vers

ità d

i Bol

ogna

] at

01:

08 2

1 N

ovem

ber

2011

executive functions on creative thinking and motorcreativity performances.

On the one hand, there seem to be some commonal-ities between motor creativity and creative thinking, asindicated by moderate, but significant, correlationsbetween fluencies and flexibilities in performing theTorrance and Bertsch tests. This suggests that there issome similarity in the processes responsible for the flu-ent and flexible production of a great amount of creativethoughts and movements. On the other hand, theabsence of a significant correlation between originalitiesindicates that there is only a partial overlap betweendimensions of creative thinking and moving differentfrom originality. This confirms that the Bertsch test per-formances are not merely movement-based measures ofcreative thinking. However, the absence of evidence forgenerality as concerns the originality dimension of crea-tivity cannot be interpreted as evidence for domainspecificity. The affirmative evidence for specificityemerged when considering the different role played byinhibitory functions in the generation of original pro-ducts in motor and nonmotor domains.

The regressions performed on fluency, flexibility, andoriginality in motor creativity revealed that fluency increative thinking is a predictor of all three dimensions,suggesting that the generation of many thoughts maybe a fundamental prerequisite for being creative inmovement and action. The fact that inhibition indexespredicted original thinking and moving in opposite fash-ion (Figures 1–2) further advances the understanding ofthe relationship between creativity and executive func-tion. In fact, it highlights the diverging role played bythe inhibitory component of executive function in theproduction of original solutions in different creativitydomains. As Figures 1–2 shows, a high originality in cre-ative moving is predicted by high levels of inhibitoryability, whereas a high originality in creative thinking

is predicted by low levels of inhibitory ability. The inte-grative model of creativity by Baer and Kaufman (2005)suggests that the determinants of creativity may vary inquantity and quality from more general to more specificlevels. The present results suggest that the role of inhi-bition is domain-specific, since it differently impacts cre-ative thinking and moving, as well as dimension-specific,since it impacts originality, but not fluency or flexibility.The nonunivocal linkage between inhibition and orig-inality finds some support in studies showing that orig-inality behaves differently from other creativitydimensions in the relationship with executive functions(Abraham, Windmann, McKenne, & Gunturkun,2007) and that the inhibitory function during develop-ment is probably more multifaceted than other executivefunctions (Huizinga et al., 2006).

Both conscious and unconscious control complemen-tarily contribute to creative behavior and cognition(Vandervert et al., 2007). Dietrich (2004) distinguishedbetween spontaneous insights, deriving from uncon-scious and unfiltered thoughts, and deliberate searchesfor insights, consisting in the conscious processing ofselected contents in working memory. Given the lateontogenical development of the principal brain structureunderlying deliberate creative behavior, the prefrontalcortex (Best et al., 2009), it may be argued that chil-dren’s creative thinking is mainly spontaneous in proces-sing mode. Spontaneous creative insights seem to befavored by defocused attention and by the ability touninhibit the flow of thoughts, as suggested by studiesshowing the positive ‘‘side effects’’ on creativity of hav-ing a low inhibitory ability due to specific syndromes(White & Shah, 2006) or, vice versa, related to giftednessin creative achievements (Carson, Peterson, & Higgins,2003). In the present study, a low level of inhibitoryability, permitting the emergence of loosely connectedassociations that are assumed to underlie spontaneous

FIGURE 2 Graphical representation of originality in creative thinking (Torrance test) as a function of the global index of inhibitory function

derived from TPI, A comb, and Runs indexes (RNG test). (Figure is provided in color online.)

CREATIVE MOVING AND THINKING AND INHIBITION 269

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Alm

a M

ater

Stu

dior

um -

Uni

vers

ità d

i Bol

ogna

] at

01:

08 2

1 N

ovem

ber

2011

creative thoughts, seems to be a major determinant oforiginal thinking performance.

In both cases of spontaneous and deliberate gener-ation of creative insights, their expression is consideredconscious and supported by deliberate sustained atten-tion processes relying on executive function (Dietrich,2004). The expression of original solutions in theBertsch test involves the planning of more complexmotor outputs than the Torrance test. This differencemay be accountable for our finding that to be originalin moving, children required the ability to activelyinhibit the strong tendency toward the production ofmore common routines. In fact, motor response plan-ning particularly requires the inhibition of prepotent,but inappropriate responses, and only to a lesser extentthe manipulation of working memory strategies (Penne-quin, Sorel, & Fontaine, 2010). Even if this evidenceprobably concerns convergent motor responses morethan divergent and creative ones, these findings suggestthat, at least in children, this may also extend to creativemotor behavior. We can speculate that automatisms inthe motor system, linked to individuals’ and species’ sur-vival, are more pervasive than automatisms in thinking.This might justify the stronger role played by inhibitionin the planning of creative motor responses as comparedto creative thinking.

Motor creativity performances in the Bertsch testseem to be largely independent of individual differencesin the development of fundamental fine-motor andgross-motor skills involved in the four motor creativitytasks. In fact, the task analysis correlating performanceon creativity tasks requiring specific fundamental motorskills (e.g., ball and hope tasks in Bertsch test) with theindividual developmental level of such skills as assessedon noncreative tasks (e.g., manipulative and ball skillstasks in the M-ABC test) did not show any significantassociation. It is to consider that the total score of motorimpairment obtained with the M-ABC showed all chil-dren being normally developing and scoring above thethreshold of borderline motor performance. Sternbergand Lubart (1995) proposed that there may be thresh-olds for some components of creativity below whichcreativity is not possible regardless of the individuallevel on the other components. Considering the inter-play between domain-relevant skills and creativity-relevant processes (Amabile, 1996), we hypothesize thatthe absence of motor developmental impairment may bea threshold for domain-relevant motor skills over whichchildren’s level on other components, such as creativity-relevant processes relying on executive function, mayinfluence creative moving. However, the lack of studiesapplying the task analysis to identify the creativityrequirements limits the understanding of the relativeimportance of different attributes for creativity (Lubart& Guignard, 2004).

A limitation of the study is represented by the narrowage range considered. Future research is needed toexplore if there is a close interrelation of developmentaltrends of inhibitory functions and motor creativity atdifferent ages and expertise levels. It might be that withincreasing age and motor expertise, also the role playedby inhibitory and other executive functions changes. Forinstance, it is possible that working memory efficiency isless relevant in childhood, as suggested by the nonpre-dictive value of memory-updating indexes for creativethinking and moving in this study, and becomes morerelevant in old adulthood, as suggested by a study inwhich age-related declines in creative performance wereaccounted for by reduced working memory efficiency(Roskos-Ewoldsen, Black, & Mccown, 2008).

Also, the correlational–regressional nature of thisstudy limits the relevance of the results for applied pur-poses. Future research should be aimed at assessingwhether motor creativity training may support thedevelopment of inhibition ability. Creativity in complexmotor tasks seems to be sensitive to experience, as wellas to specific strategies, and teaching styles in physicaleducation and sports training and seems to be charac-terized by very long retention times (Bournelli &Mountakis, 2008; Cleland, 1994; Memmert, 2007;Memmert & Roth, 2007). Also, executive and specifi-cally inhibitory functions can be fruitfully submitted toeducational interventions in normally developing chil-dren (Rueda, Rothbart, McCandliss, Saccomanno, &Posner, 2005) and, more interestingly, movement-basedinterventions in physical education can benefit inhibi-tory functions in children affected by developmentalcoordination disorders (Tsai, 2009). When also con-sidering children affected by attention deficit and hyper-activity disorders, we suppose that a motor creativitytreatment might support the development of inhibitoryfunctions that are impaired in this type of disorder(Fuggetta, 2006). Thus, research addressing the issueof the trainability of executive and particularly inhibi-tory functions thorough motor creativity experiencesin childhood should be closely linked to contemporarytheoretical perspectives on abnormal development inorder to obtain relevant practical knowledge for preven-tion and treatment of disorders.

REFERENCES

Abraham, A., Windmann, S., McKenne, P., & Gunturkun, O. (2007).

Creative thinking in schizophrenia: The role of executive dys-

function and symptom severity. Cognitive Neuropsychiatry, 12,

235–258.

Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Baer, J., & Kaufman, J. C. (2005). Bridging generality and specificity:

The assessment park theoretical (APT) model of creativity. Roeper

Review, 27, 158–163.

270 SCIBINETTI, TOCCI, AND PESCE

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Alm

a M

ater

Stu

dior

um -

Uni

vers

ità d

i Bol

ogna

] at

01:

08 2

1 N

ovem

ber

2011

Banich, M. T. (2009). Executive function—The search for an inte-

grated account. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18,

89–94.

Bekhtereva, N. P., Dan’ko, S. G., Starchenko, M. G., Pakhomov, S.

V., & Medvedev, S. V. (2001). Study of the brain organization of

creativity: III. Positron-emission tomography data. Human

Physiology, 27, 390–397.

Bertsch, J. (1983). Le creativite motrice. Son evaluation et son optimisa-

tion dans la pedagogie des situations motrices a l’ecole—Manuel de

tests. [Motor creativity. Evaluation and optimization in the peda-

gogy of physical education—Test manual]. Paris: INSEP.

Best, J. R., Miller, P. H., & Jones, L. L. (2009). Executive function

after age 5: Changes and correlates. Developmental Review, 29,

180–200.

Bournelli, P., & Mountakis, C. (2008). The development of motor

creativity in elementary school children and its retention. Creativity

Research Journal, 20, 72–80.

Carson, S. H., Peterson, J. B., & Higgins, D. M. (2003). Decreased

latent inhibition is associated with increased creative achievement

in high-functioning individuals. Personality and Individual Differ-

ences, 85, 499–506.

Cleland, F. E. (1994). Young children’s divergent movement ability:

Study II. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 13, 228–241.

Delis, D. C., Lansing, A., Houston, W. S., Wetter, S., Han, S. D.,

Jacobson, M., et al. (2007). Creativity lost: The importance of

testing higher-level executive functions in school-age children and

adolescents. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 25, 29–40.

Diamond, A. (2000). Close interrelation of motor development and

cognitive development and of the cerebellum and prefrontal cortex.

Child Development, 71, 44–56.

Diamond, A. (2002). Normal development of prefrontal cortex

from birth to young adulthood: Cognitive functions, anatomy,

and biochemistry. In D. T. Stuss & R. T. Knight (Eds.), Principles

of frontal lobe function (pp. 466–503). New York: Oxford University

Press.

Dietrich, A. (2004). The cognitive neuroscience of creativity. Psycho-

nomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 1011–1026.

Fink, A., Graif, B., & Neubauer, A. C. (2009). Brain correlates under-

lying creative thinking. EEG alpha activity in professional vs. novice

dancers. Neuroimage, 46, 854–862.

Fuggetta, G. P. (2006). Impairment of executive functions in boys with

attention deficit=hyperactivity disorder. Child Neuropsychology, 12,

1–21.

Henderson, S. E., & Sudgen, D. A. (1992). Movement assessment bat-

tery for children. [Italian version: Movement ABC—Batteria per la

valutazione motoria del bambino, 2000]. London: Psychological

Corporation.

Huizinga, M., Dolan, C. V., & Van der Molen, M. W. (2006).

Age-related change in executive function: Developmental trends

and a latent variable analysis. Neuropsychologia, 44, 2017–2036.

Kaufman, J. C., & Baer, J. (2005). The amusement park theory of crea-

tivity. In J. C. Kaufman & J. Baer (Eds.), Creativity across domains:

Faces of the muse (pp. 321–328). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Kim, K. H. (2006). Can we trust creativity tests? A review of the Tor-

rance tests of creative thinking (TTCT). Creativity Research Journal,

18, 3–14.

Konstantinidou, E., Pollatou, E., & Zachopoulou, E. (2005). The

effect of verbal instructions on preschool children’s motor creativity.

Inquiries in Sport and Physical Education, 3, 90–97.

Lubart, T., & Guignard, J. H. (2004). The generality-specificity of

creativity: A multivariate approach. In R. J. Sternberg, E. L.

Grigorenko & J. L. Singer (Eds.), Creativity: From potential to

realization (pp. 43–56). Washington, DC: American Psychological

Association.

Memmert, D. (2007). Can creativity be improved by an

attention-broadening training program? An exploratory study

focusing on team sports. Creativity Research Journal, 19, 2–3,

281–291.

Memmert, D. (2009). Noticing unexpected objects improves the cre-

ation of creative solutions—Inattentional blindness by children

influences divergent thinking negatively. Creativity Research

Journal, 21, 302–304.

Memmert, D., & Roth, K. (2007). The effects of non-specific and

specific concepts on tactical creativity in team ball sports. Journal

of Sports Sciences, 25, 1423–1432.

Naglieri, J. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2001). Understanding intelligence,

giftedness and creativity using PASS theory. Roeper Review, 23,

151–156.

Passolunghi, M. C., & Pazzaglia, F. (2004). Individual differences in

memory updating in relation to arithmetic problem solving.

Learning and Individual Differences, 14, 219–230.

Pennequin, V., Sorel, O., & Fontaine, R. (2010). Motor planning

between 4 and 7 years of age: Changes linked to executive functions.

Brain and Cognition, 74, 107–111.

Piek, J. P., & Dyck, M. J. (2004). The relationship between motor

coordination, executive functioning and attention in school-aged

children. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 19, 1063–1076.

Plucker, J., & Beghetto, R. (2004). Why creativity is domain general,

why it looks domain specific, and why the distinction does not

matter. In R. J. Sternberg, E. L. Grigorenko & J. L. Singer

(Eds.), Creativity: From potential to realization (pp. 153–167).

Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Plucker, J., & Zabelina, D. (2009). Creativity and interdisciplinarity:

One creativity or many creativities? ZDM—The International

Journal on Mathematics and Education, 41, 5–11.

Roskos-Ewoldsen, B., Black, S. R., & Mccown, S. M. (2008). Age-

related changes in creative thinking. Journal of Creative Behavior,

42, 33–59.

Rueda, M. R., Rothbart, M. K., McCandliss, B. D., Saccomanno, L.,

& Posner, M. I. (2005). Training, maturation, and genetic influences

on the development of executive attention. Proceedings of the

national Academy of Sciences of the USA, 102, 14931–14936.

Runco, M. A. (1987). The generality of creative performance in gifted

and nongifted children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 31, 16–22.

Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1995). Defying the crowd: Cultivating

creativity in a culture of conformity. New York: Free Press.

Tocci, N., Scibinetti, P., & Zelli, A. (2004). Age and gender differences

in motor creativity among Italian elementary school children.

Journal of Human Movement Studies, 46, 89–104.

Torrance, E. P. (1981). Thinking creatively in action and movement.

Bensenville, IL: Scolastic Testing Service.

Torrance, E. P. (1988). Torrance tests of creative thinking. Bensenville,

IL: Scholastic Testing Service.

Torrance, E. P. (1989). Test di pensiero creativo. Firenze, Italy:

Organizzazioni Speciali.

Torrance, E. P., & Ball, O. E. (1984). The Torrance Tests of Creative

Thinking Streamlined (revised) manual, Figural A and B.

Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service, Inc.

Torrents, C., Castaner, M., Dinusova, M., & Anguera, M. T. (2010).

Discovering new ways of moving: observational analysis of motor

creativity while dancing contact improvisation and the influence of

the partner. Journal of Creative Behaviour, 44, 45–61.

Towse, J. N., & McIachlan, A. (1999). An exploration of random

generation among children. British Journal of Developmental

Psychology, 17, 363–380.

Towse, J. N., & Neil, D. (1998). Analyzing human number generation

behavior: A Review of methods used and a computer program for

describing performance. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments,

and Computer, 30, 583–591.

CREATIVE MOVING AND THINKING AND INHIBITION 271

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Alm

a M

ater

Stu

dior

um -

Uni

vers

ità d

i Bol

ogna

] at

01:

08 2

1 N

ovem

ber

2011

Trevlas, E., Matsouka, O., & Zachopoulou, E. (2003). Relationship

between playfulness and motor creativity in preschool children.

Early Child Development and Care, 173, 535–543.

Tsai, C. L. (2009). The effectiveness of exercise intervention on inhibi-

tory control in children with developmental coordination disorder:

Using a visuospatial attention paradigm as a model. Research on

Developmental Disabilities, 30, 1068–1080.

Vandervert, L. R., Schimpf, P. H., & Liu, H. (2007). How working

memory and the cerebellum collaborate to produce creativity and

innovation. Creativity Research Journal, 19, 1–18.

White, H. A., & Shah, P. (2006). Uninhibited imaginations: Creativity

in adults with attention-deficit=hyperactivity disorder. Personality

and Individual Differences, 40, 1121–1131.

Zachopolou, E., & Makri, A. (2005). A developmental perspective of

divergent movement ability in early young children. Early Child

Development and Care, 175, 85–95.

Zachopoulou, E., Makri, A., & Pollatou, E. (2009). Evaluation of chil-

dren’s creativity: Psychometric properties of Torrance’s Thinking

Creatively in Action and Movement test. Early Child Development

and Care, 179, 317–328.

272 SCIBINETTI, TOCCI, AND PESCE

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Alm

a M

ater

Stu

dior

um -

Uni

vers

ità d

i Bol

ogna

] at

01:

08 2

1 N

ovem

ber

2011