<%BANNER%>

Creativity and Imagery in Interior Design Students

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021175/00001

Material Information

Title: Creativity and Imagery in Interior Design Students Exploring Relationships among Creative Personality, Performance, and Vividness of Visual Imagery
Physical Description: 1 online resource (121 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Kobnithikulwong, Siriporn
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: creativity, design, visualization
Interior Design -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Interior Design thesis, M.I.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: By definition, creativity assumes a central role in the field of interior design. Creativity relates to the ability to visualize information; however, only a few studies have focused on this potential connection in design. The purpose of this study is to explore the role of visual imagery in creative persons and design performance. Fifty-six advanced interior design students were profiled on their creative personality traits and visual imagery vividness through Domino's creativity (Cr) scale on the Adjective Check List (ACL) and Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire (VVIQ). To profile creative performance, participating students completed a locally developed sketch problem that was assessed by a panel of four expert judges using Amabile?s Consensual Assessment Technique (CAT) on overall creativity, elaboration, and planning evident. The sample, as a whole, reported intelligent, artistic, and imaginative as the top three adjectives describing their personality. The statistical findings indicated that the ACL-Cr did not significantly associate with the overall VVIQ; however, it showed a significant inverse relationship with the VVIQ for eyes closed. No significant correlations appeared between either the ACL-Cr or VVIQ and creative performance. In creative performance, significant relationships were revealed among creativity, elaboration, and planning evident. The qualitative analysis of creative performance indicated differences in quality of visual imagery vividness, elaboration, and planning evident between representative low and high creative performances. Representative low creative performance lacked detail both in writing and drawing, suggesting unclear visualization in participants who produced them; whereas, the high creative examples showed elaborated narratives and more fully designed drawings, indicating stronger visualization. Results suggest that creativity in design performance can be enhanced by promoting visual imagery vividness. Closing eyes may help students with lower creative personality traits visualize better than without such intervention. Vividness of visual imagery positively relates to student ability to plan and develop a design, which also seems to raise creativity in design performance. To increase creativity in interior design, it is recommended that educators should consider and encourage the importance of visual imagery in the design curriculum.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Siriporn Kobnithikulwong.
Thesis: Thesis (M.I.D.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Local: Adviser: Portillo, Margaret B.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2008-08-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2007
System ID: UFE0021175:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021175/00001

Material Information

Title: Creativity and Imagery in Interior Design Students Exploring Relationships among Creative Personality, Performance, and Vividness of Visual Imagery
Physical Description: 1 online resource (121 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Kobnithikulwong, Siriporn
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: creativity, design, visualization
Interior Design -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Interior Design thesis, M.I.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: By definition, creativity assumes a central role in the field of interior design. Creativity relates to the ability to visualize information; however, only a few studies have focused on this potential connection in design. The purpose of this study is to explore the role of visual imagery in creative persons and design performance. Fifty-six advanced interior design students were profiled on their creative personality traits and visual imagery vividness through Domino's creativity (Cr) scale on the Adjective Check List (ACL) and Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire (VVIQ). To profile creative performance, participating students completed a locally developed sketch problem that was assessed by a panel of four expert judges using Amabile?s Consensual Assessment Technique (CAT) on overall creativity, elaboration, and planning evident. The sample, as a whole, reported intelligent, artistic, and imaginative as the top three adjectives describing their personality. The statistical findings indicated that the ACL-Cr did not significantly associate with the overall VVIQ; however, it showed a significant inverse relationship with the VVIQ for eyes closed. No significant correlations appeared between either the ACL-Cr or VVIQ and creative performance. In creative performance, significant relationships were revealed among creativity, elaboration, and planning evident. The qualitative analysis of creative performance indicated differences in quality of visual imagery vividness, elaboration, and planning evident between representative low and high creative performances. Representative low creative performance lacked detail both in writing and drawing, suggesting unclear visualization in participants who produced them; whereas, the high creative examples showed elaborated narratives and more fully designed drawings, indicating stronger visualization. Results suggest that creativity in design performance can be enhanced by promoting visual imagery vividness. Closing eyes may help students with lower creative personality traits visualize better than without such intervention. Vividness of visual imagery positively relates to student ability to plan and develop a design, which also seems to raise creativity in design performance. To increase creativity in interior design, it is recommended that educators should consider and encourage the importance of visual imagery in the design curriculum.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Siriporn Kobnithikulwong.
Thesis: Thesis (M.I.D.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Local: Adviser: Portillo, Margaret B.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2008-08-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2007
System ID: UFE0021175:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 CREATIVITY AND IMAGERY IN INTERIOR DESIGN STUDENTS: EXPLORING RELATIONSHIPS AMONG CREATI VE PERSONALITY, PERFORMANCE, AND VIVIDNESS OF VISUAL IMAGERY By SIRIPORN KOBNITHIKULWONG A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF INTERIOR DESIGN UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2007

PAGE 2

2 2007 Siriporn Kobnithikulwong

PAGE 3

3 To my family and those who have contributed their support to me.

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This thesis would not have been possible without the dedication and support of many people. First, I wish to thank my supervisory committee chair, Dr. Margaret Portillo, for her patience and open-minded attitude toward my wo rk and scholarship. She gave me support, encouragement, and beneficial cr iticism that helped bring this thesis to completion. My other committee member, Jason Meneely, gave helpfu l comments and answered my questions any time I needed. Candy Carmel-Gilfilen and Dr. Maruja Torres contributed their time and thoughtful assistance to the data co llection of this research. Dr. Jo Hasell introduced the world of research to me and provided knowledge a nd support for me to live in that world. Also, the dedicated help of Stephen Flocks, who edited my drafts, was invaluable. Juanita Melchior always informed me of helpful informa tion and assisted me with graduate school forms and paperwork. Anne Baumstarck and Jennifer Bassett helped improve my writing and speaking skills and made a hard semester more delightfu l for me. I also would like to thank juniors, seniors, and other graduates who pa rticipated in this thesis stu dy. Without their contributions to the data collection, this research could not have been possible. Furthermore, I would like to thank my boyf riend and friends who supported me throughout this process in their many ways. Wuthichai Le elavoravong gave me the best support and made me feel better any time I was down. Donrueth ai Laphasradakul, Prapaporn Rattanatamrong, and Panoat Chuchaisri encouraged me to pass severa l tough periods, made me smile when I almost cried, and helped feed me when I was too tired to cook. Finally, I wish to thank my family in Thailand; without them, I doubt I would have even come to graduate school and had the determination to finish a degree.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ..........8 LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................................ .........9 ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... ............10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................12 Background..................................................................................................................... ........12 Problem Statement.............................................................................................................. ....15 Research Purposes...........................................................................................................15 Primary Variables............................................................................................................16 Conceptual Framework...................................................................................................17 Research Questions............................................................................................................. ....17 Summary........................................................................................................................ .........18 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE.................................................................................................21 Introduction................................................................................................................... ..........21 What Is Creativity?............................................................................................................ .....21 Historical Overview of Creativity Research....................................................................22 How Is Creativity Defined?.............................................................................................22 Mooneys framework...............................................................................................23 The novelty and appropriateness consensus.............................................................24 How Is Creativity Investigated?......................................................................................24 Relational Models to the Study of Creativity..................................................................26 Creativity in Persons and Products.........................................................................................27 Who Are Creative People?..............................................................................................27 Theoretical and Empirical Foundations...........................................................................28 Assessing Creativity in Persons.......................................................................................29 The Psychometric Approach as a Current Applicable Model.........................................30 Biographical inventories..........................................................................................30 Personality traits.......................................................................................................31 What Are Creative Products?..........................................................................................32 Assessing Creativity in Products.....................................................................................33 Amabiles Consensual Assessment Technique (CAT)....................................................33 Creativity in the Design Domain............................................................................................36 Creativity as a Combined Characteristic of Domain Generality and Specificity............36 Current Applicable Theories...........................................................................................36

PAGE 6

6 Amabiles componential framework........................................................................37 Csikszentmihalyis three-part theory.......................................................................37 Current Applicable Studies in Design.............................................................................38 Creativity in the design person.................................................................................38 Creativity in the design product...............................................................................39 Creativity and Visual Imagery................................................................................................42 Historical Overview of Imagery Research......................................................................42 Exploring Connections between Creativity and Imagery................................................43 Early psychological perspectives.............................................................................43 Cognitive psychological perspectives......................................................................44 Current Applicable Theories...........................................................................................45 Cognitive characteristics and pr ocesses of creative people.....................................45 A cognitive model of perception, imagery, and creativity.......................................45 Current Applicable Approaches......................................................................................46 Imagework................................................................................................................46 Markss vividness of visual im agery questionnaire (VVIQ)...................................47 Current Applicable Empirical Studies on Creativity and Visual Imagery......................49 3 METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................................52 Introduction................................................................................................................... ..........52 Participants................................................................................................................... ..........52 Instruments.................................................................................................................... .........53 Adjective Check List (ACL)...........................................................................................53 Vividness of Visual Imag ery Questionnaire (VVIQ)......................................................55 Sketch Problem................................................................................................................56 Pilot Study.................................................................................................................... ..........57 Procedure...................................................................................................................... ..........59 Summary........................................................................................................................ .........60 4 RESULTS........................................................................................................................ .......63 Preliminary Analysis........................................................................................................... ...63 Creative Personality.........................................................................................................63 Vividness of Visual Imagery...........................................................................................64 Sketch Problem................................................................................................................65 Judged evaluation of the design performance..........................................................65 Rated scores of the design performance...................................................................66 Correlation Analysis........................................................................................................... ....66 Question 1: Do Differences in Vividne ss of Visual Imagery Vary by Level of Creative Personality?...................................................................................................66 Question 2: Do Differences in Vividne ss of Visual Imagery Vary by Level of Creative Performance?.................................................................................................67 Quantitative findings................................................................................................67 Qualitative findings..................................................................................................68

PAGE 7

7 Question 3: Do Differences in Creative Performance Vary by Level of Creative Personality?..................................................................................................................71 Question 4: What, if Any, Relations hips Exist among Overall Creativity, Elaboration, and Planning Evid ent in Creative Performance?.....................................71 Summary........................................................................................................................ .........73 5 DISCUSSION..................................................................................................................... ....88 Summary of the Research Background and Purposes............................................................88 Interpretation................................................................................................................. ..........88 Interpreting Findings from the Preliminary Analysis......................................................88 Interpreting Findings from the Correlation Analysis......................................................89 Question 1: Do differences in vividness of visual imagery vary by level of creative personality?.............................................................................................90 Question 2: Do differences in vividness of visual imagery vary by level of creative performance?...........................................................................................91 Question 3: Do differences in creative performance vary by level of creative personality?...........................................................................................................93 Question 4: What, if any, relationshi ps exist among overall creativity, elaboration, and planning evid ent in creative performance?................................95 Enhancing Creativity and Visual Imager y in Interior Design Education...............................96 Limitations.................................................................................................................... ..........98 Directions for Future Research...............................................................................................99 APPENDIX A UFIRB APPROVAL............................................................................................................102 B DESCRIPTION OF TH E SKETCH PROBLEM.................................................................105 C THE SKETCH PROBLEM ASSESSMENT........................................................................106 D SOLUTIONS OF THE SKETCH PROBLEM.....................................................................107 LIST OF REFERENCES.............................................................................................................112 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.......................................................................................................121

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF TABLES Table page 4-1 Most frequently selected adjectives...................................................................................74 4-2 Descriptive statistics on primary variables........................................................................74 4-3 Visual imagery vividness scor es by creative pers onality scores.......................................74 4-4 Visual imagery vividness and creative personality correlations........................................75 4-5 Visual imagery vividness scor es by creative performance scores.....................................75 4-6 Creative performance scores by creative personality scores.............................................75 4-7 Creativity, elaboration, and planning evident correlations................................................75 4-8 Correlations between primary variables............................................................................76

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1-1 Key variables diagram...................................................................................................... .19 1-2 Conceptual framework.......................................................................................................20 3-1 Methodology framework...................................................................................................61 3-2 Arrangement for creative performance assessment...........................................................62 3-3 Examples of creative performance. A) Re presentative low creative performance. B) Representative high creative performance.........................................................................62 4-1 Visual imagery vividness scores with eyes closed by creative personality scores............77 4-2 Representative low creative performan ce. A) Example 1. B) Example 2. C) Example 3. D) Example 4. E) Example 5.........................................................................................78 4-3 Representative high creative performance. A) Example 1. B) Example 2. C) Example 3. D) Example 4. E) Example 5.........................................................................................79 4-4 Narrative elaboration comparison. A) Lo w creative performance. B) High creative performance.................................................................................................................... ...80 4-5 Literally solution. A) Low creative perf ormance 1. B) Low creative performance 2.......81 4-6 Metaphorical solution. A) High crea tive performance 1. B) High creative performance 2.................................................................................................................. ..82 4-7 Graphic comparison. A) Low creative perf ormance. B) High creative performance........83 4-8 Quality of perspective comparison. A) Lo w creative performance. B) High creative performance.................................................................................................................... ...84 4-9 Legibility quality comparison. A) Lo w creative performance. B) High creative performance.................................................................................................................... ...85 4-10 Elaboration scores by creativity scores..............................................................................86 4-11 Planning evident scor es by creativity scores.....................................................................86 4-12 Elaboration scores by planning evident scores..................................................................87 5-1 Visualization in design creativity.....................................................................................101

PAGE 10

10 Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Interior Design CREATIVITY AND IMAGERY IN INTERIOR DESIGN STUDENTS: EXPLORING RELATIONSHIPS AMONG CREATI VE PERSONALITY, PERFORMANCE, AND VIVIDNESS OF VISUAL IMAGERY By Siriporn Kobnithikulwong August 2007 Chair: Margaret Portillo Major: Interior Design By definition, creativity assumes a central role in the field of interior design. Creativity relates to the ability to visualize information; however, only a few studies have focused on this potential connection in design. The purpose of this study is to explor e the role of visual imagery in creative persons and design performance. Fifty-six advanced interior design students were profiled on their creativ e personality traits and visual imagery vividness thr ough Domino's creativity (Cr) scal e on the Adjective Check List (ACL) and Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionna ire (VVIQ). To profile creative performance, participating students completed a locally develo ped sketch problem that was assessed by a panel of four expert judges using Amabiles Cons ensual Assessment Technique (CAT) on overall creativity, elaboration, and planning evident. The sample, as a whole, reported intelligent, artistic, and imaginative as the top three adjectives describing their personality. The statis tical findings indicated th at the ACL-Cr did not significantly associate with the overall VVI Q; however, it showed a significant inverse relationship with the VVIQ for eyes closed. No significant correlations appeared between either the ACL-Cr or VVIQ and creative performan ce. In creative performance, significant

PAGE 11

11 relationships were revealed am ong creativity, elaboration, and pla nning evident. The qualitative analysis of creative performance indicated differe nces in quality of visual imagery vividness, elaboration, and planning evident between repr esentative low and high creative performances. Representative low creative performance lacked detail both in writing and drawing, suggesting unclear visualization in partic ipants who produced them; wher eas, the high creative examples showed elaborated narratives and more fully designed drawings, indicating stronger visualization. Results suggest that creativity in design perf ormance can be enhanced by promoting visual imagery vividness. Closing eyes may help stud ents with lower creative personality traits visualize better than without su ch intervention. Vividness of visu al imagery positively relates to student ability to plan and de velop a design, which also seems to raise creativity in design performance. To increase creativ ity in interior design, it is re commended that educators should consider and encourage the importance of visual imagery in the design curriculum.

PAGE 12

12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Background Doctoral students drop out of universities be fore graduation not because they cannot pass exams or get good grades in courses, but becau se they cannot come up with an original idea for a dissertation. One hears the same story in industry and the business world, in civil service and scie ntific research. Tec hnical knowledge and e xpertise might abound, but originality and innovation are scarce. Yet the way our species has been developing, creativity has become increasi ngly important. In the Renai ssance creativity might have been a luxury for the few, but by now it is a necessity for all. (Csikszentmihalyi, 2006, p. xviii) In Developing Creativity in Higher Educ ation: An Imaginative Curriculum (2006), Csikszentmihalyi states how essential creativity is in learning a discipline, and it will be increasingly important across fields in the future Particularly, in design disciplines, creativity appears fundamental to the field (Dineen, 2006; Lawson, 2005). Regarding a recent study of instructors and student s perspectives on creativity in art and design (Dineen, 2006), The development of learner creativity was considered by all of the lecturers to be the primary goal of art and design education (p. 110). Therefore, a nu mber of instructors, ed ucators, and researchers in the design field have explored correlations between creativity and several aspects of design in order to gain insight into a nd enhance design abilities and skil ls (Goldschmidt & Tatsa, 2005; Kokotovich & Purcell, 2000; Lawson, 2005; La wson & Menezes, 2006). This underlines the strong and extended relationship between creativity and the design realm. Almost 2 decades ago, Fowles (1991) predicte d, The interior desi gners work [would] become more technical, complex, and specialized and also more valued and creative. These changes should result in major alterations in desi gn education (p. 21). So far, several studies have supported his prediction by revealing the es sence of creativity in both educational and professional facets of the field (Miller, 2005; Portillo, 1996, 2000, 2002; Vithayathawornwong &

PAGE 13

13 Danko, 2003). Furthermore, creativit y appears integral in a recen t definition of the interior design profession: Interior design is a multi-faceted profession in which creative [italics added] and technical solutions are applied within a structure to achieve a built interior environment. The interior design process follows a system atic and coordinated methodology, including research, analysis and inte gration of knowledge into the creative process [italics added], whereby the needs and resources of the client ar e satisfied to produce an interior space that fulfills the project goals. (National Council for Interior Design Qualification, 2004) Presently, the Council for Interior Design Accred itation (2006), whose mission is to ensure a high level of quality in interior design edu cation, identifies creative thinking as a core requirement in the educational program standards. Regarding the professional standards, due to the responsibility of the interi or designer, which covers all spaces within environments built for human habitation, educational philo sophies and goals should be applied in the development of a creative professional who can synt hesize information and analyze problems from many different perspectives (Council for Interior Design Accreditation, 2006, 1). Based on the prediction, studies, and standa rds described above, the interior design curriculum should encourage researchers, educators, and students to explic itly think to achieve increasingly creative work in the field. How can the curriculum be developed to promote creativity? Various factors affect this issue. Howe ver, the creativity of th e interior design student, who will be expected to produce highly creative processes and performance, is fundamentally important. Heightening creativity in interior desi gn students will enable them to become more effective and successful in th eir occupation (Portillo, 1996). By reviewing studies in re lated fields (Daniels-McGhee & Davis, 1994; Davis, 1999; Kunzendorf and Reynolds, 2004-2005), we see an in teresting relationship between creativity and imagination being delineated. Imagination is define d as the act or power of forming a mental image [italics added] of something not present to the senses or ne ver before wholly perceived in

PAGE 14

14 reality (Mish, 1999, p. 578). As seen in the definiti on, mental imagery is an important part of imagination, and it has been al so connected to creativity in psychology and education research for at least 200 years. A number of studies have revealed that me ntal imagery is a crucial aspect of thinking, problem-solving, lear ning, and generating creativity (Daniels, 1995; Drake, 1996; Khatena, 1984; Morrison & Wallace, 2001; Paivio, 1969). Basically, mental imagery can be assessed through seven modalities: visual, auditory, ta ctile, kinesthetic, taste, smell, and bodily sensations (Robertson, 2003). Visual imagery, the ab ility to visualize, is the most frequently identified modality in research on mental im agery (Daniels-McGhee & Davis, 1994; Marks, n.d.; McKelvie, 1995). For instance, Daniels (1995) ex amined creativity and visual imagery in art and science specialty-school students. She discovered an important correlation between creativity and vividness of visual imagery in the students th rough How Do You Think personality inventory, Torrance Picture Completion Test, and Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire. Moreover, qualitative data gathered from the students imag e response journal revealed that highly creative students expressed more vividne ss of visual imagery through longer, more informative, and elaborate descriptions about thei r visual imagery than those with lower creativity. LeBoutillier and Marks (2003) explored creative individuals in areas of art, film, and sculpture; such as Breton, Ernst, and Moore. They found that those creative people use mental imagery, especially the visual modality, to achieve creativity in their work. Besides, many findings from art and design studies have supported the important role of visual imagery in fostering creativity; as a result, the correlation between creativity and visual imagery should be deeply examined. In the design realm, visual imagery acts as the internal visualiza tion of designers which appears to play a crucial role in the design process, such as developing concepts, designs, and

PAGE 15

15 communication skills. Designers across discip lines think and communicate visually, so visualization takes an essential part in suppor ting their creativity and design problem-solving skills (Goldschmidt & Smolkov, 2006). However, to da te, only a few studies in allied fields of design, such as architecture, interior design, landscape arch itecture, industrial design, and graphic design, have explored the correlati on between creativity and visual imagery. For instance, Liddament (2000) examined a concept of visual imagery used in design by referring to multi-disciplined perspectives. He suggested that if the concept of visual imagery could be clearly elucidated, it would he lp to develop creativity in de sign as well as provided useful implications for design pedagogy. Many studies in cognitive and design thinking ha ve shown that the in ternal visualization, visual imagery, and the external representation, such as drawings, are instrumental in design problem solving. Casakin and Goldschmidt (2000) examined effects of visual analogy and imagery on the designer problem-solving skill. On e of their conclusions stated that visual imagery can be employed by designers to manipul ate shapes and forms as well as reorganize them in consequential and creative ways. In addition, Kokotovich and Purcell (2000) investigated design issues of cr eativity, mental synthesis and vi sual imagery, and drawing. They compared and contrasted 3D-designers (industria l designers), 2D-designers (graphic designers), and non-designers by asking them to generate cr eative forms from provided shapes. The findings indicated that the designers, w ho often use visualiza tion in the design pro cess, achieved much higher scores on generating creative forms than did the non-designer. Problem Statement Research Purposes As stated in the background, the correlation be tween creativity and visual imagery appears essential to the design realm, but a few efforts have investigated this issue. Thus, this thesis study

PAGE 16

16 aims to explore whether the rela tionship exist and is beneficial to design areas. The main purpose of this thesis study is to examine relationships among features of creativity and visual imagery in interior design students. The study especially emphasizes the role of visual imagery in creative persons and performance in interior design. Results of this thesis study will be meaningful for the body of knowledge in the interior design field by contributing to bett er understanding of creativity and visualization in interior design students and their perf ormance. In addition, findings will provide recommendati ons to educators to enhance crea tivity and visualization in the interior design curriculum. Primary Variables Before conducting the current research, it is im portant to clarify definitions of primary variables and specify the scope of the investigatio n. Figure 1-1 identifies primary variables, their definitions, and the relationship among the variable s. Beginning with creativity, a majority of creativity researchers relatively agree that crea tivity can take place in a characteristic of personality, process, quality of a product, and an outcome of an environment, referred to as the four Ps of creativity: Person, Process, Produc t, and Press (Mayer, 1999; Mooney, 1963; Taylor, 1988). Only creativity in the person and pr oduct are focused in this thesis study. As mentioned above, mental imagery involves seven modalities: visual, auditory, tactile, kinesthetic, taste, smell, and bodily sensati ons (Robertson, 2003). Only visual imagery is emphasized in this thesis study. In addition, according to Block (1981) and Kosslyn, Thompson, and Ganis (2006), one side of the mental imagery re searchers, known as pictor ialists, agrees that mental images are in fact images and hence ofte n compared visual mental images to pictures (Kosslyn, Thompson, & Ganis, 2006, p. 6). The othe r side, called the descriptionalists, argues that we should think of mental images as representing in the manner of some non-imagistic representations namely, in the manner of language rather than pictures (Block, 1981, p. 3). In

PAGE 17

17 this present study, both pictorialis t and descriptionalist approaches are employed to be guidance for assessing visual imagery in interior design students. Conceptual Framework After defining the primary variable s, the scope of the thesis inve stigation is necessary to be overviewed. In the design process, a designer has to visualize something that has not been created while solving a design pr oblem. Then, in order to comm unicate a design to others, the internal visualization is devel oped through external re presentations or design performance, such as drawing or 3-D modeling. The conceptual fram ework of this study is developed to support the investigation in design process. Figure 1-2 illustrates the framework, which is di vided into three parts: the person, process, and product. First, focusing on interior design stud ents, as the person in this study, their creative personality is examined whether it relates to their self-reported vivi dness of visual imagery, which is considered as the internal visuali zation. Second, the study explores the process while the student visualizing and how they represent their visua lization through an external representation, which is the produc t in this study. Correlations betw een the generating process of the internal visualization and external represen tation are also investigat ed. Third, focusing on the other primary variable, creativity in the product or creative performance is examined. Finally, this thesis study explores whether relationships exist among these three parts of the framework. Research Questions Question 1: Do differences in vividness of visual imagery vary by level of creative personality? Question 2: Do differences in vividness of visual imagery vary by level of creative performance? Question 3: Do differences in creative perfor mance vary by crea tive personality?

PAGE 18

18 Question 4: What, if any, relationships exist am ong overall creativity, elaboration, and planning evident in creative performance? These questions require rationales from the lit erature cited in Chapter Two. Chapter Three describes the methodology: the study participants instruments, pilot study, and procedure, utilized while conducting this thesis study. Chap ter Four addresses the research questions by presenting results of the study, bot h in terms of quantitative a nd qualitative analyses. Finally, Chapter Five interprets and discusses the study, in terpretation of the results, implications to the interior design curriculum, limita tions in this research, and s uggestions for future studies. Summary Creativity has increasingly become important in learning a discipline. Particularly, in interior design, creativity has been considered as an essential char acteristic within the designer, design process, and performance. Thus, it is nece ssary to develop the inte rior design curriculum, including teaching, learning, pr acticing, and conduc ting research, to promote creativity. Reviewing the literature shows that mental imagery plays a significant role in fostering creativity. Especially, visual imag ery primarily affects creativity and problem solving skills in design. A number of studies in the psychologica l and educational areas have supported this correlation; however, only a few effo rts of designers have explored this issue. Thus, this thesis study aims to investigate this connection by emphas izing the role of visual imagery in the person and performance in interior design.

PAGE 19

19 Figure 1-1. Key variables diagram

PAGE 20

20 Figure 1-2. Conceptual framework

PAGE 21

21 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE Introduction This chapter reviews the most relevant lite rature on creativity and visual imagery that offers the background for answering the research questions raised in th is thesis. The primary thrust of this review focuses on the definition and measurement of creativity in the person and products. The review also emphasi zes the relation between creativity and imager y with particular attention to the design fields. The review is divided into four sec tions. Section one introduces an historical overview of creativity research, defini tions, as well as recent theories and approaches. Section two outlines applicable theoretical a nd empirical foundations that focused on creative traits and products. Section three discusses majo r theories associated with domain-specific creativity and outlines research from a design perspective. Lastly, section four establishes theoretical and empirical founda tions emphasizing the relation ship between creativity and imagery both in general and in the design realm. What Is Creativity? As I write, in July 2005, there is a renewed burst of interest by policy-makers in creativity. To give a few examples, Paul Roberts has just begun to review creativity in English schools; the Cultural Commission in Scotland has recently produced a sizeable and farreaching report on Scotlands creativity needs; the new Creativity Industries Minister in England, James Purnell, has outlined his vision for the creative industries; George Cox is reviewing how small and medium-sized enterp rises can make better use of creative specialists. These projects, covering different spheres of endeavour, form a good starting point for why creativity is considered a valu able attribute for soci ety, and how, within a policy-making community increasingly focused on delivery, the c-wor d is of interest. (Smith-Bingham, 2006, p. 10) As mentioned in the previous chapter and above quotation from the Head of Policy and Research at the National Endowment for Scien ce Technology and the Arts in the UK, creativity has gradually been accepted as a significant qua lity enhancing success and efficiency in every discipline. It is not su rprising that a number of researcher s across fields have employed various

PAGE 22

22 approaches to examine creativity. Furthermore, due to its multi-facets and the complexity of creativitys nature, research on cr eativity is extremely diverse and represents a range of research perspectives (Baer & Kaufman, 2006; Daniels, 1995; Kaufman & Baer, 2005; Mayer, 1999; Sternberg, 2003, 2006b). Historical Overview of Creativity Research Before 1950, research in creativity emphasized th e role of intelligence research (Albert & Runco, 1999; Sternberg, 1988a) with little research focusing excl usively on creativity. Some experts, such as Guilford, include d creativity as a subset under th e area of intelligence; whereas, others, such as Getzels, argued that creativity was psychologically dist inct from intelligence (Albert & Runco, 1999). However, interest in creativity research be gan to grow in 1950 when Guilford, in his APA Presidential Address, br ought the potential of creativity research back into the forefront (Sternberg & Lubart, 1999). During the 1950s to 1970s, work in creativity had developed in different fields with different perspectives, but results from those studies did not provide a clear focus. Since the 1970s, creativity research has become clear and noticeable with definitions, approaches, and theories develope d by creativity pioneers, such as Guilford, Torrance, Sternberg, Lubart, Csikszentmihalyi, Amabile, and Ga rdner (Baer & Kaufman, 2006; Mayer, 1999; Sternberg, 2003, 2006a). Although resear ch on creativity is s till considered a minor subject in the field of psychology, it has generate d significant progress as results of the pioneering efforts and gradually grown across disciplines (Feldman & Gardner, 2003; Kaufman & Baer, 2005; Sternberg & Lubart, 1999). How Is Creativity Defined? What is creativity? In general, it seems to be easy to describe this term and find examples of creative people, things, or situations; however, there are challenges in empirically defining

PAGE 23

23 this term. A diversity of theoretical and methodological perspectives indicates multiple approaches to researching creativit y, contributing in part to lack of consistent definitions of this term (Amabile, 1983, 1996; Davis, 1999; Guiford, 1950; Mayer, 1999; Simonton, 1999; Sternberg, 1985, 1988b, 2006a, 2006b; Sternberg & Lubart, 1999; Taylor, 1988; Torrance, 1984). Even though Sternbergs (1985, 1988b) cla ssic study involving implicit theories shows that people agree on the same viewpoint about ma in characteristics of creative individuals, or Amabiles (1983, 1996) research reveals a high intern al consistency among e xpert judges in their assessment of creative products, th ere is still no definite meaning to define creativity. In Fifty Years of Creativity Research Mayer (1999) argues for a clearer and more practical definition of creativity in the field. Mooneys framework Mooney (1963) facilitated organi zation of research on creativity by proposing four foci for scrutinizing creativity; they comp rise the creative environment or press, the creative product, the creative process, and the crea tive person. Mooney states that although previous creativity research employed different ways to study and fo cused on different aspect s of creativity, those ways and aspects were one or a combination of the four foci. Besides providing a rational panel of categorie s to the creativity research organization, Mooneys framework also responded to a disciplin ary disintegration among different approaches in social, psychological, and be havioral research. Based on this framework, various approaches and theories in those areas have been categori zed into the four channels. Recently, according to Baer and Kaufman (2006), Ster nberg (2003), Sternberg and Luba rt (1999), and Taylor (1988), the disintegrated nature of creativity research has gradually waned because more combined approaches and theories occur. The integration among many previous defini tions and theories as

PAGE 24

24 subcomponents of a surrounding and unified cons truct is currently in troduced by emerging systems theories. Since the four foci are expansive and practicab le to be employed for study in most aspects of the creativity research appearing in the literature, Mooneys framework has widely been recognized and utilized by many researchers (Davis, 1999; Plucker & Renzulli, 1999; Sawyer, 2003; Sternberg, 1988b; Taylor, 1988). Torrance (1988), whose research has focused on the creative process, makes an excel lent connection among the creativ e process, person, press, and product within his research definition: I chose a process definition of creativity for research purpose. I though t that if I chose a process as a focus, I could then ask what ki nd of person one must be to engage in the process successfully, what kinds of environments will facilitate it, and what kinds of products will result from successful op eration of the processes. (p. 47) The novelty and appropriateness consensus Even though an exact definition of creativity has not been collectivel y accepted, a majority of creativity researchers generally endorse the notion that creativity involves the creation of an original and useful or novel and appropriate product (Averi ll, 2005; Baer & Kaufman, 2006; Amabile, 1983, 1996; Davis, 1999; Gruber & Wa llace, 1999; Leman, 2005; Mayer, 1999; Sternberg, 2006a). Mayer (1999) defines novelty and appropriateness as follows: The overarching definition of creativity seems to favor the idea that creativity involves the creation of new and useful produc ts, including ideas as well as concrete objects; however, from this definition, it follows that creative people are those who create new and useful products, and creative cognitive processes occu r whenever a new and useful product is created. (p. 450) How Is Creativity Investigated? Not only is defining what creativity complex, bu t also describing how it is studied proves challenging (Baer & Kaufman, 2006; Mayer, 1999). By analyzing and summarizing previous and

PAGE 25

25 current research on creativity, Mayer (1999) high lights a representative sampling of creativity research approaches: Psychometric methodologies: In these approaches, creativity is best described as a quantifiable human factor, and quantitative measur ement is the most important characteristic of these methodologies. Experimental methodologies: Experimental researchers view creativity as a cognitive process of the human and seek to analyze the cognitive processes involved in solving creativity problems. Biographical methodologies: Biographical approaches focu s on analyzing case studies of the eminent creative peoples history. They believe that events in the lif e of a creative person can address his or her creativity. Biological methodologies: Biological or cogni tive neuroscience researchers consider creativity as a measurable physiological ch aracteristics and examine the physiological relationship of creative problem solving. Computational methodologies: The main notion of these approaches is that a computer program can represent a persons creative thinking; th erefore, techniques of artificial intelligence are examined to find correlations with creativity in the human. Contextual methodologies: In these approaches, creativity is viewed as a context-based activity; creativity is in its social, cultural, or evolutionary context. In addition, each of those six approaches may address each of three research paradigms, including describing the nature of creativity, comparing crea tivity and non-c reativity, and relating factors to creativity. According to Sawyer (2003), the psychometric approach is most widely employed and developed in cr eativity research, especially crea tive personality traits. It is

PAGE 26

26 important to note that this thesis study follo ws this approach, considering creativity as a measurable mental trait of individuals a nd employing quantitative measurement to study creativity. Particularly, this curr ent research focuses on two type s of the research paradigms: comparing interior students who score high and low in creativity and relating creativity measures to vividness of visual imagery measures. Relational Models to the Study of Creativity One relatively recent subject regarding the in tegration tendency is relational models, or also known as confluence models (Baer & Kauf man, 2006; Sternberg, 2003; Sternberg & Lubart, 1999). Relational models are multifactor models that posit several sepa rate but interacting components that must come together to yiel d original and produc tive outcomes (Baer & Kaufman, 2006, p. 20). Each theory is brie fly presented here, but Amabiles and Csikszentmihalyis theories, which are more rele vant to content in following sections, will then be amplified. Amabile (1983, 1996) introduces a three-factor model or a componential framework and defines creativity as the confluences of in trinsic motivation, domain-relevant skills, and creativity-relevant skills. The cr eativity-relevant skills comprise a cognitive style, knowledge of heuristics, and a work style. Gruber and his colleagues (G ruber & Davis, 1988; Gruber & Wallace, 1999) posit a developmental evolving-sy stems model for understanding creativity that emphasizes the unique ways that a creators pur pose, idea, knowledge, and affect grow over time. Gruber studied individuals, such as Char les Darwin, in documented records to trace the development of ideas over time. His studies also showed the ten acity and complexity of creative progress leading to successful cr eative products. Gardner (1993) also conducts case studies suggesting that creative products ca n be developed from an irregularity within a system, such as tension between competing critics, or moderate asynchronies between th e individual, domain,

PAGE 27

27 and field. Csikszentmihalyi (1988, 2006) proposes a different systems a pproach but emphasizes the interaction of the in dividual, domain, and field. Sternberg and Lubart (1991, 1999; Sternberg, 2003, 2006a) present an investment theory of creativity, which was expanded from Sternberg s three-facet model of creativity (1988b). Based on this theory, they state that a creativ e person is one who buys low and sells high in ideas. They also posit six main interrelated aspects that are relevant to this process; they include intellectual abilities, knowledge, thinking styles, personal ity, motivation, and environment. More recently, Sternberg and colleague s (Sternberg, 1999, 2003, 2006a; Sternberg, Kaufman, & Pretz, 2004) introduce a propulsion model stating that creativ ity can be different kinds, depending on how it propels existing ideas forward (Sternberg, 2003, p. 99). This theory addresses eight different kinds of creative contributions that are categorized based on their correlation to the domain. The eight contributions consist of replicati on, redefinition, forward incrementation, advance forward incrementation, redirection, reconstruc tion, reinitiation, and integration. Researchers in different fields have investigated characters of creativity in order to promote human ability to contribute creativity to a domain. However, due to its complexity and multi-facet nature, we have not been able to precisely define creativity yet. So far, one primary point we found from reviewing the literature is th at we cannot establish an y laboratory settings to explore creativity characters; only way for explori ng creativity is to inves tigate it in context. Creativity in Persons and Products Who Are Creative People? Since the 1950s, the creative pe rson personality has been the first focus of research on creativity (Chvez-Eakle, Lara, & Cruz-Fuentes 2006; Sawyer, 2003). Most of the studies have investigated personality correlate s of highly creative behaviors a nd/or individuals and determine

PAGE 28

28 their traits. In order to gain insight into personality, researchers have utilized different approaches based upon their perspective on creativity definitions. As a result, various definitions of creativity include the following: A creative pe rson is someone who posse sses particular traits that influence his or her cr eativeness (Davis, 1999, p. 41), The creative person is not conveniently far out along some well-charted path: She or he is unique in unexpected ways (Gruber & Wallace, 1999, p. 93), and within thei r domain of interest, all creative individuals love the task that engage s their whole energy (Csi kszentmihalyi, 2006, p. xix). Theoretical and Empirical Foundations Literature on early writings linked creativity and intelligence in which the concept of the creative person was shrouded in the concept of the intelligen t genius (Sternberg, 1888a; Sternberg & Lubart, 1999). According to Albert and Runco (1999), in th e pre-Christian period, the idea of genius was related to mystical powers of protection a nd good fortune, until the Greeks shifted their thinking to individual abilit ies and desires. During the Middle Ages, views on genius and creativeness rela ted to creation or genesis fr om God. It was not until the Renaissance that this attitude sh ifted to understanding genius (i ncluding creativity) as a humanbased competence. In the late of 1800s, while the idea of creativity as an identifiable and inherent intellectual construct was seriously bein g critiqued, empirical st udies were taking place to test this assumption by invest igators (Albert and Runco, 1999). Galton took his efforts on studyi ng the diverse traits of em inently creative individuals. Galton considered diversity as a measurement pr oblem. To solve that problem, diversity was operationalized as individual diss imilarities within a setting of known factors that could be measurable. Thus, one of Galtons significant cont ributions directly to psychological research and indirectly to creativity was the operational definition of broad evolutionary diversity as manifested in specific individua l differences that could be measured (Albert & Runco, 1999, p.

PAGE 29

29 24). In addition to this, by employing measuremen t methods to investigate diverse aspects, he also posited a paradigm that is now known as the psychometric appro ach. Based on his earlier study of eminence-achieving families, Galton also suggested that creativity was significantly related to intelligence, and they were abilities in every human without any supernatural powers. In the early period of the empirical creativity research, intelligen ce research dominated creativity in intelligence; studi es in the topic had no unified direction. However, Guilford stimulated creativity investigations in the ea rly 1950s. Based upon his earlier intelligence work, Guilford correlated divergent production to cr eativity. He developed the three-dimensional Structures of Intellect model to describe th e processes that a highly creative persons brain could perform (Baer & Kaufman, 2006). Furthermore, this mode l emphasizes creative thought and defines divergent production as a set of creative thinking f unctions, including generation of a quantity of ideas, the number of possibilities into which ideas can be placed, the uniqueness of ideas, and the embellishment of ideas. These f unctions are well known as fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration (Gu ilford, 1967). Besides this renown ed model, Guilford technically is recognized as an original one who introdu ced the psychometric approach to the realm of creativity. Assessing Creativity in Persons After the contribution of Guilford, most effo rts in the field have been dedicated to examining creative people. As a result, current diverse approaches in the subject have been heavily developed and applied to study cr eative persons. According to Mayers (1999) representative sampling of creativity research ap proaches, of the six current approaches, the top three most broadly employed approaches in assessing creative i ndividuals comprise: The psychometric approach: This is Guilfords origin al approach and considers creativity as a mental characteristic that can be measured by appropriate to ols. In other words,

PAGE 30

30 creativity is best described as a quantifiable human trait. This approach employs quantitative measurement and ability-based analyses to examine creativity in people. The experimental approach: It is considered as the significant tried-and-true method of cognitive psychological researc h. It emphasizes the cognitive pr ocesses that are involved in solving creativity problems. Th ree primary components of this approach are controlled environments, quantitative measurement, and cognitive task analysis. In the experimental approach, creativity is best desc ribed by analyzing the cognitive pr ocesses of humans since they engage in creative thinking. The biographical or cognitive neuroscience approach: This approach includes both qualitative analyses, such as the case study method (Gruber & Wallace, 1999), and quantitative analyses, such as the historiometric pers pective (Simonton, 1999). The biological approach considers creativity as a measurab le physiological characteristic. In other words, creativity can be best described as physiological changes of a human that rela te to creative problem solving. The Psychometric Approach as a Current Applicable Model As described previously, the psychometric me thodology is the most relevant approach for this thesis study; therefore, the psychometric ev idence is mainly highlighted in this review as well. Since the 1950s, psychometric instruments have been heavily designed and developed across domains to explore creativity (Sawyer, 2003). Regarding Plucker and Renzulli (1999), this approach suggests that a pers ons creativity consists of vari ous facets that can be quantified by appropriate quantitative instruments. Basicall y, there are two main ch aracteristics of such instruments: biographical inventories and personality traits. Biographical inventories The best predictor of future creative behavi or may be past creativ e behavior (Colangelo et al., 1992, p. 158). In addition to this, Amabile ( 1983) suggests that people creativity may be a

PAGE 31

31 result from their past. Based on this assumpti on, biographical inventorie s have been developed by many researchers (Plucker & Renzulli, 1999). By employing the instruments, past behaviors of creative individuals are examined to indicate whether those experiences have any correlations with their creative outcomes. In general, biogr aphical inventories requ ire respondents to report their past accomplishments and/or experien ces; however, many instruments contain an itemcheck list that associates either with current ac tivities or with both past and current activities. Personality traits This kind of psychometric instrument focuse s on measuring diverse characteristics of people. Fundamentally, the instruments have b een designed to assess pe rsonality relating to creative behavior and indicate highly creative individuals comm on personality traits. Then, these traits have been utilized in comparison with other indivi duals. The instruments are widely developed and employed in creativity research (Chvez-Eakle, Lara & Cruz-Fuentes, 2006; Plucker & Renzulli, 1999); examples of these m easures include the Group Inventory for Finding Talent, Group Inventory for Finding Interests, Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire, and Adjective Check List. The following is an example of empirical crea tivity studies employing th e personality traits to explore creativity in a speci fic domain. Domino and Giuliani (1997) employed the ACL-Cr to assess three samples of photographers: phot ography students, novice professionals, and experienced professionals. In the student gr oup, there was no significan t correlation among the ACL-Cr, creativity ratings, and technical expertise ratings. On the contrary, in the novice professional group, scores on the ACL-Cr significantly correlated with all dimensions: portfolio rated scores, grades, creativity ratings, technical expertise ratings, and self-ratings. Like the novice professionals, in the experienced photogr apher group, significantly relationships were revealed among the ACL-Cr, portfolio ratings, creat ivity self-ratings, and creativity peer-ratings.

PAGE 32

32 By comparing the ACL-Cr scores the progression of ACL-Cr means across the three samples was found, with the students scoring lowest and the experienced professionals scoring highest. By reviewing the literatu re on the creative person, first, we found that theories and research surrounding this topic agree well that the personal ity traits can enhance creativity (Sawyer, 2003; Sternberg, 2003). In addition, Helson (1996) makes an interesting suggestion that creative personality investigations shoul d return to explore whether hi ghly creative people have common traits across domains and disc over the significant differences among highly creative persons. Second, we also see the major direction of future research that aims to understand the complex phenomenon of creativity among diff erent variables rather than de fine those various variables (Baer & Kaufman, 2006; Plucke r, 2005; Sternberg, 2003). What Are Creative Products? MacKinnon (1978) claims that the basis of creativity studies should be investigating creative products in order to identify what diffe rentiates them from othe rs. This idea has been increasingly accepted by a number of researcher s who study creativity across different fields. Prominent researchers offer definitions of a creat ive product in a way to clarify dimensions of creative performance. For example, Amabile (1982) suggests that a pro duct or response is creative to the extent that appropriate observers independently agr ee it is creative (p. 1001). Gruber and Wallace (1999) describe that the creative product must be new and must be given value according to some external criteria (p. 94). Averill (2005) defines that a cr eativity response is (typically) different from what is standard for the i ndividual or group, and it is of some value (e.g., aesthetically as in art, theoretically as in scien ce, or practically as in business) (p. 231). Based on reviewing the literature, it is important to not e that most definitions of creative performance emphasize the important role of novelty and appropr iateness. Basically, nove lty is easier to be

PAGE 33

33 identified than appropriateness; one can depict im mediately what is new or different from others, whereas only one cannot decide easily what is usef ul or appropriate to its context. Some of the definitions obviously stressed that criteria in a domain are necessary for assessing creative products. Assessing Creativity in Products Research into creative products was primarily ad dressed to establish va lidity in creativity research and help create external criteria th at could be compared with other creativity measurements (Plucker & Renz ulli, 1999). However, it is di fficult and complex to find an appropriate approach to assess creative products. Even though th e psychometric approach has been successful in the study of creative people, esp ecially in the study of pe rsonality traits, it has been surprisingly limited in the study of creative products. So far, the most accepted method for assessi ng creative products has been the rating of external judges, including educators, parents, and experts in a domain (Plucker & Renzulli, 1999). According to Balchin (2006), the views of experts in a domain support this method to be more reliable than many others. In the area of product ratings by doma in-expert judges, two slightly different methods have been develope d. First, refined by Amabile (1983) and widely known as the Consensual Assessment Technique (C AT), is the rating with out or with little guidance. This method addresses the significant role of specific crite ria within disparate domains, and it has been more widely recognized by all most al l fields, even the hard sciences (Baer, Kaufman, & Gentile, 2004). Th e other one is the ra ting with fully provided categories that serve as guides for experts to assess products. Amabiles Consensual Assessment Technique (CAT) Amabile (1983, 1996) refined and develope d the Consensual Assessment Technique (CAT) in order to investigate levels of creativity embodied by a product. The CAT requires

PAGE 34

34 expert judges to assess creativity mainly with th eir own concept of creativity based upon the only theory of the CAT suggesting that experts in a given domain read ily identify creativity when they see it (Ambile, 1983, 1996; Baer, Kaufman, & Ge ntile, 2004). Administration of the CAT is relatively simple and straightforward. Howeve r, at the same time, it adheres to some requirements as Hennessey a nd Amabile (1988) describe: Subjects are asked to complete some task in a specific domain (such as poetry), and then experts in that domain (such as poets) independ ently rate the creativit y of the products. The level of interjudge agreement is assessed, and if it is acceptable (generally above .70), the mean across-judge creativity ratings are used as our dependent measures of creativity. (p. 15) A number of studies have pr oved that the CAT can be validly and reliably employed in evaluating creativity in products, mostly in visual arts and writings. In order to expand the scope of its validity, Auh and Johnston (2001) origina lly utilized the CAT in assessing creativity in music. In their study, a product sample included 19 musical compositions and 14 invented stories produced by threeto five-year-old children. A pane l of three experts was utilized to evaluate the products using the CAT. As a final result, they found that the CAT was a reliable method to assess creativity in musical compositions by the children with inter-judge reliabilities of .86 for the music compositions and .70 for the invented stor ies. In addition, they concluded that the CAT contained some advantages for the judges to see the products from a more holistic view. Even though the CAT has been both wide ly employed and well validated across disciplines, its validation has been limited to ev aluating only products under strictly experimental conditions with specific requirements for creati ng the products. Accordi ng to this limitation, Baer, Kaufman, and Gentile (2004) conducted research to explore if the CAT can be expansively used in assessing a broader and more divers e product sample gathered for non-specific experimental requirements. For this study, a larg e panel of 13 expert judges was employed to assess creativity in students stories, personal narratives, a nd poems that had been already

PAGE 35

35 collected in another research study. The results pr oved that the CAT had a pot ential to be broadly used in evaluating creativity in diverse products with a high degree of inter-judge reliabilities (.94 for the stories, .96 for the narratives, a nd .87 for the poems). Furt hermore, the results allowed researchers to gain benefits from alrea dy-gathered creative products to assess different correlations that may lead to greate r levels of creative performance. In the educational area, teacher rating has been the most popular tests for apparent reasons. The instruments require teachers to rate specific dimensions of students products. One of the most recent teacher-rating tests is a creativ ity feedback package (CFP) developed by Tom Balchin (2006). The CFP includes seven criteria fo r products to be rated in a 12-point Likert scale; the criteria consist of uniqueness, associations of ideas, risk-taking, potenti al, operability, well-craftedness, and attractiveness. Four of th em describe the creativ e concept and the other three describe the quality of build. Concise defi nitions, as a guideline to evaluate students products, are also provided for educator judges. The person and product are involved in cr eativity production as stated in Mooneys framework. A creative person is someone who possesse s specific traits that affect his or her ability to produce creative process or ideas. Th e most widely employed approach to study the creative person is the psychometric methodology. In particular, research on creative personality traits has been the first focus on studying creativity in people. A creative product or idea has to consist of novelty and usefulness regarding the consensus of novelty and appropriateness. C ontrast to the research on the creative person, research on the creative product has not found a precise approach to assess creativity yet. So far, the most frequently employed approach to evaluate creative performance is the consensual assessment technique, which is based upon opinions and co mments from expert judges in each domain.

PAGE 36

36 Creativity in the Design Domain One primary issue at the heart of creativit y research is whethe r creativity is domain specific, and this conflict has lead to a sp lit in thinking. The firs t camp, employing a domaingeneral approach, considers that creative proc esses are universal. The other camp, employing a domain-specific approach, believes that creativity is unique and focuses only on creativity within specific fields such as art and science. Creativity as a Combined Characteristic of Domain Generality and Specificity Based on the current direction of unified theori es in creativity research, the fragmentation of those two approaches has been welded. So me researchers who support the domain-general approach have recognized an important role of domain-specific thinking skills in creative thinking. Some experts in specific domains have tried to correlate the personality traits of creative individuals in their dom ain with those in others (Baer & Kaufman, 2005). However, in assessing creativity in products or performance, a domain stil l obviously plays a strong and important role. Recently, Kaufman and Baer (2005a) articulate the importance of domain specificity in creativity as The field of creativity is a natural one in wh ich to explore issues of content and domain specificity. Although one can th ink of creativity as a cons truct in abstract, domaintranscending ways, all creativ e products come into being in some domain or field of endeavor (and they are ultimately judged by the current standards of the relevant field or domain). Creativity also has a much wider pur view than it once did; no longer confined to just a few areas in the arts and sciences, creativity is now considered important in performances and products of all kinds. (p. xiv) Current Applicable Theories By reviewing the literature in the topic of creativity in the design domain, three recent applicable models are presented here. The first two theories represent the unified approach and the last one is a recently proposed theory of B aer and Kaufman, who relatively see creativity as a domain-specific character.

PAGE 37

37 Amabiles componential framework Amabile (1983, 1996) posits a componential fr amework or a three-factor model of creativity productivity. She views cr eativity as the confluences of three components: intrinsic motivation, domain-relevant skills, and creativity-relevant skills. Intrinsic motivation or task motivation : It is defined as ones attitude toward the task, ones perception to starting the ta sk, ones first level of internal motivation toward the task, and the ability to mentally minimize external restra ints (Davis, 1999). According to Amabile (1996), the simple internal motivation can lead to higher le vels of creativity than external motivation; in addition to this, increasing extrinsic motivation, such as offering of rewards, might decrease intrinsic creativity. She al so notes that rewards that convey competence information to subjects may not undermine intrinsic motivation (p. 160). Domain-relevant skills: They consist of knowledge and skills that influence creative performance in a given domain but not creative performance in other domains, such as drawing or writing. Creativity-relevant skills: These skills include (a) a c ognitive style that engages in complexities and mental processes that occur during solving creative problem, (b) knowledge of heuristics for creating new and different ideas, and (c) a work style t ypified by concentrated effort, an ability to break free from problems, and high energy. Csikszentmihalyis three-part theory Csikszentmihalyi (1988, Nakamura & Csik szentmihalyi, 2003) proposes a theory highlighting the interaction among three component s of creativity: the in dividual, field, and domain. The individual: A person utilizes knowledge in a domain and expands or converts it through personality characteristics, cognitive pro cesses, and motivation. Everyone has potentials

PAGE 38

38 to be creative. Fresh perceptio ns, novel creations, and valuable ideas can be caught by anyone. However, persons who actually change the ways we see and do things are only few. The field: This component includes experts or pe ople who manipulate a domain and judge or select creative outcomes. Members of a field can either enhance or hinder creativity in the domain. By admitting too many novel ideas or bei ng too strict, new creative outcomes can be harmed and limited. The domain: A domain protects and transmits cr eative outcomes to other people both in present and future. Domains are relatively stable, and through learning, they can transmit valuable ideas without change fr om one generation to the next. Current Applicable Studies in Design Creativity in the design person Dohr (1982) examined planning program-devel opment approaches focusing on changes in participants creativity. The first one was cal led the linear approach, which provided the experiment with explicit and traditional educa tion experience. The othe r was the exploratory approach, which provided multi-dimensional and integrative education experience. A sample of 85 women was divided into two gr oups for participating in each approach. Dominos creativity scale (ACL-Cr), a divergent thi nking exercise, and personal interv iews were employed for this study. The results presented that, after the experi ment, a mean ACL-Cr score of the exploratoryapproached participants ( M = 47, SD = 10.16) was significantly higher than of those in the linear approach ( M = 39.4, SD = 12.1). In conclusion, providing flex ibility in the planning process appeared to support participants creativity. According to the literature on creativity ba sed on the domain-specific approach, besides understanding the influences of educational approaches on le arner creativity, understanding the nature of people in specific fields has been ma inly focused on. According to Sternbergs (1985)

PAGE 39

39 Implicit Theories of Intel ligence, Creativity, and Wisdom professors of art, business, philosophy, and physics were asked to portray characteristics of highl y intelligent, creative, or wise persons in their correlated fields. The results revealed that the creative person was defined as someone who was unorthodox, perspicacious, appr eciative of the arts and imag inative, intelligent and able to connect ideas in new ways, reflective and flexible, and energetic and goal directed. Furthermore, the art professors relatively highlighted original ity, imagination, and experimentation as their creative characteristics, while those in bus iness emphasize the ability to create and develop new ideas. Portillo (2002) also employed implicit th eories of creativity to examine creativity conceptions of professors in allied design fi elds, including interior design, architecture, landscape architecture, and e ngineering. The Adjective Check List (ACL) and Dominos creativity scale (ACL-Cr) were ut ilized to collect the data. Expl oratory analyses of individual ACL-Cr items indicated at leas t 75 percent of the respondents in each field agreed that imaginative, inventive, and adventurous were it ems for best describing the creative individual in their respective fields. In addition, the creative indi vidual in interior design was recognized as significantly more individualistic and original than those reported in the other three disciplines. Creativity in the design product McCoy and Evans (2002) explored the role of specific interior design elements on creativity. Two studies were undertaken. In the first study, they ut ilized a photographic structured Q sort to examine which kinds of interior space participants would feel most creative and least creative. Based on results from the first study, two settings were created in order to be environments for conducting creativity tests in st udy two; one was reporte d as a low creativityfostering environment and the other one was report ed as a high creativityfostering environment.

PAGE 40

40 In the second study, a sample of twenty pr e-college students was randomly divided into two groups that completed two creativity tests in both settings in counterbalanced order. The creative tests included the Torranc e Test of Creative Thinking ( TTCT) and creating collages that were then evaluated by Amabiles Consen sual Assessment Technique (CAT) on three dimensions of creativity: fluency, flexibility, and originality. A panel of six expert raters was employed, and inter-rater reliability of .78 exceeded the acceptable level. The results indicated that participants who completed the tests in the high creativity-foster ing environment scored significantly higher both in th e TTCT and collage than those in the low creativity-fostering setting. Meneely and Portillo (2005) conducted research examining domain-specific correlations among creative personality traits, cognitive styles, and creative performance. A sample of 39 design majors was employed and administered the Adjective Check List (ACL) and the Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument (HBDI). In addition, a design task was given to each participant and results of the task were then assessed for creativity using the CAT. According to the results, creative personality traits that were most frequently checked by the sample included imaginative, artistic, independent, curious, ambitious, adventurous, humorous, sensitive, intelligent, and energetic. A majority of the sa mple showed high-flexibility in their thinking process. A significant correlation between crea tive personality scores on the ACL-Cr and cognitive flexibility scores on the HBDI was fou nd, and the creative personality scores predicted creative performance. Recently, Van der Lugt (2005) investigated a relationship between sketching and creativity in design. According to previous published resear ch, sketching mainly served as three functions: (a) supporting the individual thinking process, (b) supporting re-interpret ation of each others

PAGE 41

41 ideas in group action, and (c) increasing access to earlier idea s. Van der Lugt categorized three kinds of sketching for investiga ting in this study based on those functions: the thinking sketch, talking sketch, and storing sketch. Four experimental meetings were set up; each meeting consisted of five experienced product design ma jors. During meetings, the participants were asked to use a brainsketching technique to repr esent their idea generati on. The results of each type of sketching were finalized by using the link systems, which reflect structurally different interactions that the designers can have with their earlier ideas (p. 11). Finally, the results of the thinking and storing sketches strongly supported that sketch ing could enhance the creative process and ideas in group meetings. Furthe rmore, sketches could motivate creativity, particularly in the immediate idea generating process. It is interest ing to note that the results of Van der Lugts study and Lawsons (2005) rese arch, discussing how people could enhance creative design process and ideas, supported each other. Both of them emphasized the essential role of sketching in creative design process. As seen in the previous review of the lite rature, many features, such as intelligence, imagination, and originality, ar e involved in creativity product ion. Particularly, in the design fields, one of those features which is frequently reported by highly creative design individuals and mentioned in creative personality traits is imagination or visual imagery. To gain insight into visual imagery, section four provi des an overview of mental imag ery research and highlights the role of visual imagery in creativity in design. The important role of a domain is highlight ed by many theoretical and empirical studies on creativity. Creative people in each specific domain possess some different tr aits from others in different domains. Creative individuals in the art and design fields ar e described as more original, imaginative, and individualistic than creativ e people in other fields.

PAGE 42

42 Furthermore, one domain provides different cr iteria from other ones to assess creative performance or products in that domain. In the art and design areas, besi des creative-relevant skills, designers still need domain-relevant skil ls, such as sketching or using computer-aided programs, to accomplish creative performance in art and design. In addition, as a part of criteria in the design fields, comments and opinions from educators, professionals, and experts are very essential to assess creative performance in design areas. Creativity and Visual Imagery We are immersed in imagery. We have images of ourselves and images that we portray to the world. We rehearse future action and deci sion by imagining how things would be if we did this or that. We reflect on and evalua te the past through weighing up and sifting through our memories, just as with a set of old photographs. In all these human activities we create and are influenced by the power of our inner imagery. Though we regularly translate some of that perceived imagery in to conceptual thought and subsequent action, the use of our imaginative senses could be mo re extensively used acr oss the full range of social science research. (Edgar, 2004, p. 1) Mental imagery is one of the most associated topics with creativity (LeBoutillier & Marks, 2003; Pylyshyn, 2003). Basically, mental imagery can be assessed through seven modalities: visual, auditory, tactile, kinesthetic, taste, smell, and bodily sensations (Robertson, 2003). Visual imagery, the ability to visualize, is the most freq uently identified modality in research on mental imagery (Daniels-McGhee & Davis, 1994; Marks, n.d.; McKelvie, 1995). A concept of visual imagery is usually delineated in creativity defi nitions, personality traits, theories, and empirical studies. Many philosophers, psychol ogists, behaviorists, educationists, even scientists and artists, have spent their efforts to expl ore this relationship and taken its potential to develop the body of knowledge in their fields (D aniels-McGhee & Davis, 1994). Historical Overview of Imagery Research In accordance with a thoughtful literature revi ew of Daniels-McGhee and Davis (1994), a role of imagery was evidenced in the history by early philosophers many centuries ago. Visual

PAGE 43

43 imagery was also highlighted by Ar istotle that the soul, never th inks without a mental picture (Yates, 1966, p. 32). In the Renaissance, many ch anges and new notions of cognition occurred, and imagination was tied to a divine and ma gical power. It was not until the Protestant Reformation that the idea of magical imagin ation was declined and substituted by verbal strategies. Ramus, a notable philosopher of the 1600s, opposed Aristotelian conceptions of images and the use of imagery. He emphasized an imageless mind in memory system and learning process (Daniels-McGhee & Davis, 1994). During the second half of the 1900s, the fi eld of psychology was established and the potential of imagery was reborn. Wundt was the fi rst psychologist, who gave birth to imagery again (Daniels-McGhee & Davis, 1994). He pr oposed a periodic table of the mind listing elementary sensations. One of his colleagues argu ed the point against the imageless mind; if one had an imaginal mind, even abstract ideas c ould be represented in imagery. However, the imagery-supportive investigation was limited by the development of behaviorism, especially by the research of Watson, who a ttacked the existence of images. Imagery was ignored until cognitive psychologists and beha viorists needed to explor e beyond verbal responses in investigating the Stimulus-Response formula. Imag ery was re-emerged as a potential subject of the investigation. Exploring Connections between Creativity and Imagery Early psychological perspectives In the early psychology era, although many be haviorists put no effort into imagery research, clinical researcher s and psychologists well recognized the importance of imagery (Daniels-McGhee & Davis, 1994). Freud states th at emergence of images derives from the unconscious in primary thinking process, includi ng dreams, reveries, free associations, and fantasies. In addition, fantasies and imagery are forms of creativit y that are adapted to be more

PAGE 44

44 socially accepted. Furthermore, Kris follows Freuds track but emphasizes preconscious and conscious mental process on motivating creativit y and fantasies. Jung introduces archetypal images, part of the collective unconscious, em erging in dreams and shap ing visionary creativity or active imagination. The main idea of Jungs clarification is that humans contain a common and universal storehouse of psychic c ontents that are called archetypes. Cognitive psychological perspectives After being re-emerged by cognitive psychologi sts, imagery is classified by Holt (1964) into nine categories: the thought image, eidetic image, synesthesia, hallucination, paranormal hallucination, pseudo-hallucination, dream im age, hypnagogic image, and hypnopompic image. Based on these nine types of im agery, highly creative individuals have frequently referred to dream images, hypnagogic and hypnopompic images, and thought images. Paivio (1971) proposes a dual-coding theory stating that two coding systems of human cognitive process include imaginal and verbal sy stems. Paivio posits that learning will be more effective, and recall will be gr eater when the two systems become involved. Thus, images should influence a higher level of recall than words be cause images can be coded both imaginally and verbally. In his studies comparing the processing of words and pictor ial stimuli, he also indicates that people recall more of the images, but had greater precision in recall of the order when stimuli are words. Shepard (1978) and Kosslyn (1985, 1994; Ko sslyn, Thompson, & Ganis, 2006) consider mental imagery as pictures in the mind rather than words. By conducting a number of studies to explore the transformation process associated with mental rotation of visual stimuli in memory, Shepard suggests that an image in our mental imag ery is similar to the perception of an object in reality. Kosslyn has extended Shepar ds track of the imagery investigation. He posits that people

PAGE 45

45 are different in the quality and kind of imagery th at they can employ; furthermore, they differ in the manner in which they util ize their imaginal ability. Current Applicable Theories Cognitive characteristics and processes of creative people Tardif and Sternberg (1988) surveyed literat ure on creativity across multi-perspectives and provided meaningful descriptions of the creativ e person associated with features of imagery. Their explanation of the creativ e individual is based on the foll owing perspective; although it is generally agreed that creative individuals are creative within limited domains, various explanations have been offered for why indivi duals differ in their pr opensities toward and abilities in their domains of specialty ( pp. 433-434). They created a list of cognitive characteristics that are shared by creative pe ople across domains. The characteristics can be basically categorized into three groups: traits, abilities, and pr ocessing styles belonging to the creative person. Considering creative features on the list, many of them obviously relate to imagery. Focusing on traits of the crea tive person, good imagination implies an important role of visual imagery in creativity production. Within cognitive abilities of th e creative individual, thinking metaphorically and using wide categories and images also su pport the significant role of imagery. Moreover, in processing styles of the creative person, the connec tion between creativity and imagery is found in preferri ng nonverbal communicatio n and creating intern al visualizations. A cognitive model of perception, imagery, and creativity Flowers and Garbin (1989) suggest that a combination of involuntary and executively controlled processes generates creative behavior The involuntary processes are informationreducing procedures serving to in crease stability and organization of percepts for normal people; furthermore, these processes resist the form ation of new representations of ideas. The

PAGE 46

46 executively controlled processes include the selective attention, manipulation of mental images, and controlled cross-modal repr esentation. According to their an alysis, the crea tive person is likely to be affected by a looseness of percepti on in the involuntary processes; this lack of perceptual rigidity allows his or her to develop information from environment and recalled or reconstructed images in new ways. Nonetheless, the creative person may have more superior control of the executive proce sses than normal people; as a re sult, the anomalous or unusual image is consciously exposed to constructi on and modification to encourage new ideas. Current Applicable Approaches Since imagery has been differently inves tigated among diverse fields, a number of approaches have been presented (Kosslyn, 1980). Ho wever, this review aims to explore imagery only in facets that are most re levant to the design field. A novel method of imagination-based qualitative research and a classic approach relating to visual imagery are considered beneficial to the current research; therefore, they are highlighted here. Imagework Recently, imagework is introdu ced as a new methodology for so cial sciences research, using imaginative and experien tial practices. It has been de veloped based on Jungs active imagination concept and is al so called active imagination, visualization, and guided fantasy. According to Edgar ( 2004), imagework is defined that: The imagework method is an active process in which the person actively imagining lets go of the minds normal train of thoughts and images and goes with a sequence of imagery that arises spontaneously from the unconsci ous. It is the quality of spontaneity and unexpectedness that are the hallmarks of this process. (p. 7) Since imagework establishes a new way of re search, providing more opportunities to gain insight into the personal experience, it has been increasingly grown mos tly in the fields of qualitative research, such as visual anthropology art-based research, and transpersonal research

PAGE 47

47 (Edgar, 2004). To organize a variety use of im agework, it has been ca tegorized into three characteristics: the introduc tory imagework, memory imagework, and spontaneous imagework. Introductory imagework: This type of imagework is desi gned to facilitate investigating participants feeling about a specific circumstance. The method is simply to ask participants to imagine an image reflecting the situation being focused on at that time. This method can be employed as apart of group interviews and focus groups. Memory imagework: This aspect is designed to awaken images of participants childhood experiences that are forgotten or little considered The method consists of directing participants through their early biographi cal memories. This can be a part of an oral history approach as well as a written narrative approach. Spontaneous imagework: The method is to ask a group of participants to visualize and direct them on an imaginary journey together. Th is procedure can reveal and work on important personal and social issu es of participants. It is worth noting that imagework is not only used for gathering rese arch data, but it is widely utilized in therapeutic methods and educati on programs as well. In addition to this, it can be applied to enhance creativity in some wa ys. As creativity can be taught, practicing imagination and elaboration abilities tend to be one option to cultivat e creativity (Robertson, 2003). Markss vividness of visual imagery questionnaire (VVIQ) Although imagery comprises the mental sights, sounds, smells, tastes, touch, and other bodily sensations, the most widely referred a nd emphasized aspect has been visual imagery (Kaufmann, 1979; Robertson, 2003). Focusing on the vi sual aspect, vividness has been at the top of the research approaches (LeBoutillier and Marks, 2003).

PAGE 48

48 Marks (1972) developed the Vividness of Visu al Imagery Questionnaire (VVIQ), which is a brief 16-item questionnaire with a five-point rating scale of vivi dness of visual imagery. In the VVIQ, vividness is defined as clar ity and liveliness of a picture th at comes before the minds eye (Marks, 1973, n.d.; Robertson, 2003). Reliability and validity of the test are well acceptable, approved by a large number of studies in educ ation and psychology that have employed this instrument (McKelvie, 1995). For example, Isaac and David (1994) conducted an experiment, consisting of five studies to explore individuals developmental changes an d differences in visual and movement imagery as well as to examine if systematic differen ces in imagery vividness can be quantified in specialist groups. In the five studi es, a diversity of participations such as students in age groups from 7 to 50+ years of age, across-major college students, air traffic cont rollers, and pilots, was utilized to find the differences among individu als. The researchers employed the VVIQ and the Vividness of Movement Imagery Questionnaire (VMI Q) to collect data from the samples in all five studies. Based on study one, the findings indicated that the VVIQ and VMIQ are reliable instruments for measuring imagery vividness ev en when a subjects are young children. The results of study three found that students in differing areas of study contained significantly different imagery ability; however highly similar imagery profile s among the different groups of influential athletes were revealed in study four. As a conclusion of all studies, the results strongly suggested that imagery aptitude provides a strong influence on the development and control of movement skills. Kunzendorf and Reynolds (2004-2005) used the VVIQ1, VVIQ2, and Prevalence of Visual Imagery Test (PVIT) for their st udy connecting the ability to imagin e with the ability to develop

PAGE 49

49 rules of perceptual equivalence. Also, the re searchers created drawings, consisting of three figures, two of which were topol ogically equivalent to each other, and use them to assess the ability to develop the rules. Scores on the ab ility to develop the ru les were analyzed by performing a median-spite analys is of the VVIQ scores. The ove rall findings indicated that participants who achieved greater vividness of visual imagery significantly succeeded at visual problem solving than those with lower vividness of visual imagery. Current Applicable Empirical Studies on Creativity and Visual Imagery The correlation between creativ ity and imagery in high school students was discovered by Daniels (1995). Creativity and vividness of visual imagery profiles were collected from students in artand science-specialty schools, using f our instruments: How Do You Think inventory (HDYT), Torrances Test of Creative Thinking (T TCT), VVIQ, and the image response journal. The statistical findings disclose d that high creative students reported more images and vividness of their visual imagery than students with low creativity. The most interesting point of differences between the reports of high and low creative students was in the length, detail, and level of elaboration shown in th eir narrative journals. Furthermore, creativity and domain effects and an interaction for vividness of imagery were indicated. By reviewing a number of empirical studies fo cusing on the role of im agery in the creative process, LeBoutillier and Marks (2003) suggest s that there are two standard approaches employed in the topic: the indi vidual differences and image gene ration approaches. Then, they chose the first approach to be the theme of their study. A content analysis and meta-analytic procedure were performed, and ni ne studies, out of 58 papers associated with imagery and creativity, were statistically analyzed. The VVIQ was the most employed instrument for assessing self-reported imagery, while the TTCT was the most employed instrument for assessing creative thinking perfor mance. The overall results indicated that self-report imagery

PAGE 50

50 associated with creative thinking; however, th e association was very weak. Therefore, the findings established only slight support for the claim that imager y was a significant associate of creativity. Then, moving into allied fields of design, Kokotovich and Purcell (2000) examined design issues of creativity, mental synthesis, and drawin g. Visual imagery was one aspect in the heart of the mental synthesis. Two experiments were c onducted; they compared and contrasted threedimension designers, two-dimension designers, a nd non-designers. In the first experiment, the sample was asked to produce creative forms ba sed upon assigned information. As expected, the designers achieved almost twice the number of creative forms than th e non-designers. In the second experiment, the same procedure as in the first experiment was repeated, but the participants were allowed to dr aw during the process; this aime d to test whether drawing can enhance the ability of creative ment al synthesis. Similar to previ ous research in the topic, the findings revealed that drawing did not enhance the creative mental synt hesis output at all. Currently, Goldschmidt and Smolkov (2006) co nducted another study associated with a part of mental synthesis that involved visual imagery. They e xpanded the idea recognizing visual imagery and sketching as primary internal and external components in creative design problem solving. However, their research relatively em phasized on visual stimuli and effects the participants had on design performance. A sample of architecture and indu strial design majors was asked to solve two tasks of design problem solving in different settings. The participants were separated into three groups based on three se tting conditions: with no visual stimuli, with diverse and full visual stimuli, and with a mode st number of visual stimuli. Participants solutions were evaluated by three judges on three dimensions of creativity including originality, practicality, and general quality. The overall results showed that visual stimuli significantly

PAGE 51

51 influenced the mental synthesis and design prob lem solving. The best solutions were obtained from participants in the setti ng with a modest number of visu al stimuli. Full visual stimuli effected better results than did no visual st imuli. In addition, visual stimuli significantly enhanced originality in design solutions, whereas practicality was negatively affected by visual stimuli. The role of visual imagery has been mentione d in creativity theories and introduced by a number of creativity researchers. Studies in ps ychological and educational areas have revealed findings to strengthen the asso ciation between creativity and vi sual imagery. However, some researchers argue that creativity and visual imager y strongly connect to ea ch other only in some aspects. For example, the analysis of self-repo rted creativity and visual imagery instruments indicates a slight relationship be tween those two measures. In th e design realm, visual imagery or the ability to visua lize plays a significant ro le in design problem solving, whereas only a few studies have focused on this subject.

PAGE 52

52 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Introduction In order to investigate relationships am ong creative personality, performance, and vividness of visual imagery in design, this thesis study employed multiple measures testing creative personality, desi gn performance, and vividness of vi sual imagery. Creative personality traits and vividness of visual imagery profiles were collected from a sample of experienced interior design students with tw o standardized self-reported inst ruments. A measure of creative performance was also gathered from the pa rticipants by employing a design-based sketch problem designed by the researcher to gauge cr eativity, elaboration, and planning evident; this problem directly related to dom ain-specific and design problem-so lving skills. This approach supported a multi-dimensional prof iling of relationships among the person, performance, and process of visualization in design. Based on the conceptual framework, Fi gure 3-1 illustrates the instruments and types of data employed to investig ate each primary variable of this current thesis study. Participants The participants were 56 upper division de sign students enrolled in an accredited department of interior design at a large private university in the southeast United States. Since this thesis study aimed to expl ore the relationship between crea tivity and imagery in interior design, experienced students were assumed to have a more developed skill set and provide more useful and relevant data than beginning students. The sample consisted of junior, senior, and gr aduate interior design students. Their ages ranged from 20 to 35 with a mean of 22.6 ( SD = 2.6). Only two or 3.6% of the participants were male; this sample is a sign of the female dominance in the interior design academic field.

PAGE 53

53 Meneely and Portillo (2 005) found a major gender-composition issu e in interior design education from their 2003 personal communication with Ka yem Dunn, the Former Executive Director of Foundation of Interior Design Education and Res earch (FIDER), now known as CIDA. At that time, the 142 accredited interior design programs across North America enrolled an estimated 10% males and 90% females. The sample, which was selected by the convenient sampling method, included a juniorand graduate-student class and se nior-student class in the inte rior design program. All involved students volunteered and complete d a written consent statement to participate in the study. A data-collecting process, conducted in April 2007, consisted of two class sessions. Due to absences that occurred during the second data-col lecting session, the creat ive personality traits and vividness of visual imagery profiles reported in this study are based on a sample size of 56, but levels of the overall creativ ity, elaboration, and planning evid ent in design solutions that were gathered in the second sessi on are based on 49 participants. Instruments Adjective Check List (ACL) This thesis study utilized the Adjective Check List (ACL) to assess th e creative personality traits profile from the sample. The ACL was designed by Gough at the Berkeley Institute of Personality Assessment and Research in 1949 and developed by Gough and Heilbrun in 1980. According to the reviews by Teeter and Zarske (Buros, 1985), the ACL was initially created for observers to use in describing others; however, it has been eff ectively employed in self-reported investigations. The ACL form has three pages a nd requires fifteen to twenty mi nutes to complete. The test is in a 300-item format formulated into 37 separa te scales for interpretation. Raw scores can be converted to standard t -scores. Considering wide variation (. 34 to .95) of the ACLs reliability,

PAGE 54

54 median values in the mid 70s confirm generally sufficient reliabilities. Correlations between ACL scales and several other tests, such as th e scales of the California Psychological Inventory and the Minnesota Multiphasis Personality Inventor y, basically prove validity of the ACL. To collect a creative personali ty traits profile in this study, the ACL was scored with Dominos (1970) Creativity Scale (ACL-Cr) in st ead of the ACL-Cps suggested in the ACL manual because the ACL-Cr provides more relevant results to artand design-based research than the ACL-Cps. Domino (1970) studied creativ e achievement in students over a three-year period. By using the ACL, he found a Cr scale of 59 items was reported most frequently to creative students. Moreover, in his cross-valida tion study of 800 science, art, and literature students, the ACL-Cr si gnificantly differentiated creative st udents from the control groups. Dominos study also showed high in ternal consistency reliability and good validity in predicting the rated creativity of students art and writing projects (Davis, 1999). To convert the ACLs raw scores to the ACL-Crs t -scores, the researcher referred to Creativity is Forever (Davis, 1999), which includes the 59-item scale and scoring guide of the ACL-Cr. Furthermore, Dominos Creativity Scale was empirically compared with three other creativity scales developed from the ACL: the Smith and Schaefer Scale, Yarnell Composite Scale, and Goughs Creativity Personality Scale (Domino, 1994). A science-specific and an artspecific samples were administered the ACL and asked to rate themselves and their peers on dimensions of creativity, intellectual competence, personal competence, leadership, sociability, communicative skills, and punctualit y. Results revealed that all of the four scales indicated sufficient internal consistency reliability in both samples w ith the highest of .86 for the Dominos scale and the lowest of .74 for the G oughs scale. In the science-specific sample, scores on all four scales significantly related to both self-rati ngs and peer ratings of creativity. In

PAGE 55

55 the art-specific sample, all four scales also significantly related to both self-ratings and faculty ratings of creativity (Domino, 1994) Therefore, all four scales can be well used to predict creativity rated by others, such as peers or professors. Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire (VVIQ) The vividness of visual imagery questionna ire (VVIQ) was empl oyed to profile the vividness of visual imagery of the student par ticipants. The VVIQ, introduced by Marks in 1972, is a 16-item questionnaire with a five-point rating s cale of vividness of visual imagery (Isaac & Marks, 1994; Marks, 1973; McKelvie, 1995). Ma rks (1972, 1973) defined vividness as clarity and liveliness of a picture that co mes before the minds eye. Test ta kers are required to call for a variety of images based on the items and rate those various images according to the five-point scale, with 1 as the most completely vivid image and 5 as no image at all. It is important to note that, to facilitate investigati ng relationships among visual im agery vividness and features of creativity in this presen t study, the VVIQ rating scores were reversed: 1 = no image at all, 2 = vague and dim, 3 = moderately clear and vivid, 4 = clear and reasonably vivid, and 5 = perfectly clear as normal vision. This reversal is comm only performed in the comparison between the VVIQ and another measure (McKelvi e, 1995; Walczyk and Hall, 1988). The VVIQ shows a test-retest reliability coeffici ent of .74, a split-half reliability coefficient of .88, and an alpha reliability coefficient of .89 (McKelvie, 1995). Validity information is provided in terms of correlations between the VVI Q and other instruments of picture recall and self-rating (Marks, 1972, 1973). Furthermore, McKelvie (1995) found the VVIQ validity coefficient across all criterion tasks of .269 ( 95% confidence interval .25 to .31) that was accepted as evidence of a relationship. The VVIQ, in general, is a useful pr edictor, particularly for some interesting relationships between vi vidness of visual imagery and a variety of performance measures.

PAGE 56

56 Sketch Problem A sketch problem was locally developed for this thesis study to determine overall levels of three dimensions, including creativity, elabora tion, and planning evident in design solutions produced by interior design students. Regard ing Goldschmidt and Sm olkov (2006), visual imagery and sketching are the two influential dimensions in design problem solving. In the design problem-solving process, visual imagery, an internal representation of visualization, is developed and represented through sketching, an external representation. As a result, drawing was a primary element for solving this sketch pr oblem; this encouraged the participants to employ an external representation to support thei r internal visualizati on. Additionally, a written narrative was employed as the other primary elemen t for solving the problem; this encouraged the participants to elaborate on their imagination more completely and effectively. The sketch problem consisted of two sections The first section involved sketching, while the second section involved writi ng about ideas presented in the drawing (Appendix B). The task began by having the students consider four word s as primary clues or idea generators. The descriptors were carefully selected by the resear cher and two qualified expe rts in interior design education in order to prevent any limitations that might hinder or mislead the participants creativity and imagination. These words (time, contrast, repetition, and change) stimulated a concept as the students visualize an interior tran sitional space fully and sketch their visualized space. After completing the sketch, they wrote about their drawing of the interior space describing the situation, feelings or other details. The drawings and narratives were coded to protect the identity of the student participants. To measure an overall creativit y, elaboration, and planning evid ent in design performance, both sketching and narrative pa rts gathered from the sample were evaluated by following Amabiles (1996) Consensual Assessment Techni que (CAT). The researcher asked a panel of

PAGE 57

57 four expert judges, consisting of interior design faculty, to assess the design solutions. The judges were given an instruction document (Appendi x D) and verbally instructed to rate the design solutions on a 1.0 to 5.0 scale relative to one another solely base d on their subjective evaluations of the three dimens ions: creativity, elaboration, and planning evident, presented in each performance (Baer, Kaufman, & Gentile, 2 004). The four judges rated design performance independently in different periods. Figure 32 shows the arranged design solutions for the assessment process. Calculated for this thesis study, inter-rater reliabili ties of .80 for creativity, .80 for elaboration, and .77 for planning evident, were above the acceptable levels recognized by Amabile (1996). Finally, the top five and bottom five of judged creative performance were thoroughly analyzed. Figure 3-3 illustrate s examples of the represen tative low and high creative performances. The researcher, the only judge in this procedure, analyzed the chosen performances based on main criteria identified in the sketch problem directions (Appendix B): presenting four key terms (time, contrast, repetition, and change) through a solution and describing situations and/or feeli ngs within a visualized space. To get more insight into visual imagery vividness, elaboration, and planning evident within creative performance, the representative low and high crea tive groups were compared usi ng following criteria that are relevant to design performance: quality of na rrative elaboration, translation styles, design graphics, quality of perspectiv e, and quality of legibility. Pilot Study A primary objective of the pilot test was to determine the sketch problems quality and how it should be developed for employing in the data collecting process. Because the ACL and VVIQ are standardized instruments that have been widely utilized in psychological and educational research, they do not need pre-testing.

PAGE 58

58 Three graduate students in architecture and inte rior design were asked to participate in the pilot study. The researcher informed them of th e purposes of the study and pilot test. The pretesting participants volunteered and were not paid any compen sation for participating. Each student was given a letter-size sh eet, 11 x 17 white sheet, two 11 x 17 trace sheets, and two pencils. The researcher also gave a one-page document of directions (Appendix C) and verbally instructed each participant to fully visualize a transitional area inside a building by using four key words: time, contrast, repetition, and cha nge. Afterward, the student participants were required to sketch their visualization on the 11 x 17 white sheet. Also, they were able to use the trace sheets to create a draw ing if they would like to. Then, they were asked to write a description of the drawing. Finally the recorded periods and pretested results of the sketch problem were evaluated and analyzed to impr ove the problem and plan the data collecting process. Recorded time spent by the participants ra nged from 20 to 35 minutes for sketching and three to ten minutes for writing; as a result, the researcher decided to provide thirty minutes for the sketching part and ten minutes for the narrative part of the sketch problem. Two of the pretesting participants used a trace sheet to sket ch their preliminary ideas and drew their final drawing on the white sheet as required, while the other one used only the white sheet. However, the researcher still pr ovided the same set of supplies when undertaking the data collecting process. There was no evidence of unclear directions of the sk etch problem; on the one hand, every participant easily created a sketch and narr ative based on the instruction. However, it is important to note that there was a limitation for a participant who is not a native English speaker to describe his idea clearly in English. Compar ed with the other two narratives, the description

PAGE 59

59 written by the non-native English speaker provid ed less information and details to support the drawing; this represents a limitation in the study. Procedure The data collecting process wa s separated into three stages In the first phase, the participant groups were given the university informed cons ent statement (Appendix A), two instruments, and a pencil. Then, they were aske d to complete the Adjective Check List (ACL). They selected adjectives that they considered as best describing their own personality from a 300-item list. After finishing the ACL, the particip ants were asked to rate a 16-item form of the Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire(VVIQ) acco rding to the clarity and liveliness of their visual imagery twice, the first time with their ey es open and the other with their eyes closed. The first phase took a total of thirty minutes to complete. In the second phase, which was conducted in the next 50-minute class period, the student participants were requested to solve the sketch problem. Each participan t was given one lettersize sheet, one 11x 17 white sheet, two 11x 17 trace sheets, and two pencils. After providing those supplies to all participants, the researcher al so gave them directions and descriptions of the problem (Appendix B). Afterward, the researcher verbally instructed the students to fully visualize or design a transitional space. The partic ipants were asked to sketch their final visual image on the 11x 17 white sheet. They were able to use the trace sheets to create one or more drawings and require extra sheets from the resear cher as well. The participants were told to complete a drawing in thirty minutes. And then, th e researcher asked the participants to narrate a situation, feelings, or other deta ils appearing in their imagined space that they could not present through the drawing. They wrote a narrative part of one page on the letter-size sheet. This narrative section took ten minutes to finish.

PAGE 60

60 Finally, the third phase of the data collection involved the evaluation of each participants final design performance from the second stag e using the Consensual Assessment Technique (CAT). Before the assessment process, the draw ings and narratives were coded to protect the identity of the student participants. The re searcher reproduced each narrative by typing and attached it to a drawing coded in the same number in order to facilitate the evaluation. All of the solutions were consecutively arranged in relati on to the coding numbers on tables. Each judge was asked to assess design performance individua lly. They were supplied with an instruction document (Appendix C) and evaluation forms to r ecord their responses. Each judge was required to review all solutions first and then assigned a different starting point around the tables to evaluate the levels of crea tivity, elaboration, and planning evident pertaining to each performance on a five-point scale (Amabile, 1996) The judges were also asked to rate the solutions relative to one another rather than in accordance with some absolute standards. Summary In conclusion, the methodology profiled creative personality traits and vividness of visual imagery by administering two standardized measur es to the sample of 56 experienced interior design students. These profiles we re developed fro m Dominos creativity scale (Cr) scores on the Adjective Check List (ACL) and visual imager y vividness scores on th e Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire (VVIQ). Ad ditionally, a locally developed sk etch problem was pre tested and then given to 49 student participants to measure their creative performance in design. The last stage of the data collection was the a ssessment of an overall quality of creativity, elaboration, and planning evident in the desi gn solutions, employing the Consensual Assessment Technique (CAT).

PAGE 61

61 Figure 3-1. Methodology framework

PAGE 62

62 Figure 3-2. Arrangement for creative performance assessment A B Figure 3-3. Examples of creative performance. A) Representative low creative performance. B) Representative high creative performance.

PAGE 63

63 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Creative personality profiles of the sample we re based on scores from Dominos creativity scale (ACL-Cr). Visual imagery vividness profil es of the sample were derived from the Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire (VVIQ) scores, and creative pe rformance profiles of the sample were based on average rated scores from the entire panel of expert judges. To fully present findings from the study, this chapter is divided into two sections. The first section describes primary results of each administered instrument. The second section, which is organized by four primary resear ch questions, presents results fr om each question and compares them to findings from previous pertinent research. Preliminary Analysis Creative Personality The Adjective Checklist (ACL) was administ ered and scored using Dominos (1970) creativity scale (ACL-Cr) to eval uate creative personality charact eristics. Calculated from the samples self-described personal ity data, Cronbachs alphas identif ied a high degree of internal consistency with reliabilities of .97 for the total ACL instrument and .87 for the creativity scale (ACL-Cr); this is consistent with Meneely a nd Portillos (2005) st udy using a design majors sample with reliabilities of .97 for the total ACL instrument and .89 for the creativity scale. Out of 300 items on the ACL, the number of adjectiv es checked per particip ant ranged from 24 to 228 with a mean of 97.3 ( SD = 36.4). This result is consistent with the average number of items checked by a normative women sample ( M = 97.4, SD = 34.6) stated in the ACL scoring manual (Gough & Heilbrun, 1983). To control for the total number of adjectives checked, the AC L-Cr scores were converted from the ACL raw scores using t -tables (Davis, 1999). The fina l scores indicated that the

PAGE 64

64 samples ACL-Cr scores ranged from 34 to 68 with a mean of 50.0 ( SD = 8.0), which is somewhat but not significantly higher than scores found in previously published studies using a design majors sample ( M = 48.5, SD = 9.2; Meneely & Portillo, 2005) and using a range of majors from across disciplines sample ( M = 45.2, SD =11.5; Davis & Bull, 1978). The most common ACL-Cr self-described adjectives within the participants were revealed by a frequency analysis; they included intelligent, artistic, imaginative, capable, enthusiastic, ambitious, sensitive, curious, humorous, independent, adapta ble, interest-wide, a nd confident. Table 4-1 shows rank of the adjectives ordered by numbers a nd percentages of participants selecting each adjective. Vividness of Visual Imagery The Vividness of Visual Imager y Questionnaire (VVIQ) was ad ministered and scored to profile visual imagery vividness within the samp le. According to the rating scale indicated by Marks (1972), the author of the VVIQ, the lower score means the higher vividness and clarity of visual imagery within each person. However, to facilitate investiga ting relationships among visual imagery vividness and feat ures of creativity in this pr esent study, the VVIQ ratings were reversed: 1 = no image at all, 2 = vague and dim, 3 = moderately clear and vivid, 4 = clear and reasonably vivid, and 5 = perfectly clear as normal vision. VVIQ analyses typically reverse the scores to facilitate comparisons between th e VVIQ and other measures (McKelvie, 1995; Walczyk & Hall 1988). Also, other VVIQ statistical data referred from previous studies was applied in the same directi on to correctly compare with the data from this study. Calculated from the VVIQ data, reliability of .92 showed a high degree of internal consistency, achieving the acceptable level of .89 recognized by Marks (1995). In addition, reliability of .82 for eyes open and closed corr elation was also above the acceptable level of .75 (McKelvie, 1995). Based on 16 total items of the VVI Q, a mean of each item s scores collected

PAGE 65

65 from the sample was 3.7 ( SD = 1.10). This result is consistent w ith a mean of Isaac and Markss (1994) research using a range of majors across four disciplines: Phys ical Education, English, Physics, and Surveying ( M = 3.81, SD = .48) and a mean of all 38 means collected from previous published studies using college stud ents as their main samples ( M = 3.69, SD = .21; McKelvie, 1995). The final overall VVIQ scores indicated that the sample ra nged in vividness of visual imagery from 63 to 150 with a mean of 119.39 ( SD = 19.19). On the one hand, this result is higher than previous published resear ch using a psychology majors sample ( M = 61.30, SD = 8.10; Kunzendorf & Reynolds, 2004-2005). On the othe r hand, it is lower than a mean from Riquelmes (2002) published research using a sample of Spanish psychology and Chinese business college students ( M = 158.43, SD = 10.13). To gain further insight into the difference between eyes open and closed scores, the research er also calculated mean scores for both parts. A mean of 58.20 ( SD = 10.70) for the scores with eyes open was slightly lower than the mean of 61.20 ( SD = 14.00) for the scores with eyes closed; however, this difference was not significant with t (56) = -1.389, p = .170. This finding is strengthened by studies of McKelvie (1995), which reveals an overlapped effect size for eyes open and closed is very close to zero, and Isaac and Marks (1994), who find no significa nt difference between eyes ope n and closed scores in the majority of their study cases. Sketch Problem Judged evaluation of the design performance Overall levels of creativity, elaboration, and planning evident indicated by the final design performance were assessed using the Consensu al Assessment Technique (CAT). Inter-rater reliabilities for the four expert judges were above the acceptable level of .70 recognized by

PAGE 66

66 Amabile (1983 & 1996) and Barnard (1992). Relia bilities reached .80 on the dimension of creativity, .80 on the dimension of elaboration, and .77 on the dimension of planning evident. Rated scores of the design performance Rated scores from the entire pa nel of judges were averaged for each participants design solution. The final results indicated average creati vity scores ranged from a low of 1.00 to a high of 4.75, with an overall sample mean of 2.67 ( SD = .88). The samples average elaboration scores ranged from a low of 1.25 to a hi gh of 5.00, with an overall mean of 2.85 ( SD = .84); and average scores from planning evident ranged fr om a low of 1.00 to a high of 4.75, with an overall mean of 3.02 ( SD = .86). Correlation Analysis To further test relationships among creative personality, vividness of visual imagery, and creative performance, the resear cher performed a median split on the ACL-Cr, VVIQ, and the three dimensions of creative performance in or der to indicate low and high groups for data collected through each instrument. Table 4-2 illustrates numbers of participants, average scores, and standard deviations bel onging to low and high groups base d on the data collected through each instrument. Question 1: Do Differences in Vividness of Visual Imagery Vary by Level of Creative Personality? As stated in the previous chap ter, vividness of visual imagery or internal visualization was measured using the VVIQ and creative personali ty was assessed using the ACL-Cr. Thus, correlations between the VVIQ and ACL-Cr were used to examine differences in vividness of visual imagery reported among the participants of differing levels of creative personality. The reported ACL-Cr and overall VVIQ scores revealed no significant relationship between visual imagery vividness and creative personality ( r = .26, p = .058, t = -1.934). A linear regression

PAGE 67

67 analysis between the ACL-Cr and VVIQ eyes open scores found no significance either ( r = .05, p = .709, t = -.375). However, a significant relations hip was revealed between the ACL-Cr and VVIQ eyes closed scores with r = .31, p = .019, t = -2.411. A scatter plot of this correlation is shown in Figure 4-1. To further test this relatio nship, the researcher employed a median split on the ACL-Cr to define a low ACL-Cr group ( n = 27) and a high ACL-Cr group ( n = 29). Table 43 illustrates mean VVIQ scores of the low a nd high ACL-Cr groups. An Independent-Samples t test confirmed that the low ACL-Cr group accomplished signifi cantly higher VVIQ eyes closed scores than did th e high ACL-Cr group, t (40.90) = 2.918, p = .006. A Pearson-Correlation analysis was also perf ormed to test the relationship between the VVIQ and ACL-Cr within the low and high VVIQ and ACL-Cr groups. As shown in Table 4-4, a statistically significant relationship between the VVIQ and ACL-Cr scores was found only within the low VVIQ group. According to the findi ngs described previousl y, it is interesting to note that participants within the low level of cr eative personality were likely to achieve higher scores on the VVIQ with eyes closed than those in the high level. Question 2: Do Differences in Vividness of Visual Imagery Vary by Level of Creative Performance? Quantitative findings Vividness of visual imagery was measured using the VVIQ and creative performance was assessed using the sketch problem and CAT. Th us, correlations between the VVIQ scores and average rated scores on the sketch problems crea tivity dimension (SP-Cr) were used to examine differences in vividness of visual imagery reported among the participants who performed differing levels of judged creative performance. A linear regression analysis was utilized to examine relationships between the VVIQ and SP -Cr scores. This analysis found no significant correlation ( r = .09, p = .555, t = .595). To gain more information about relationships among the

PAGE 68

68 low and high VVIQ and SP-Cr groups, the rese arch also employed a Pearson-Correlation analysis to examine whether there were co rrelations existing betw een the VVIQ and SP-Cr scores within the low and high groups. Mean VVI Q scores of the low and high SP-Cr groups are illustrated in Table 4-5. This analysis i ndicated no significant correlation either. Qualitative findings Qualitative data collected from both sketch ing and writing components of the sketch problem revealed differences between those judged low and high on creativity. Ten design solutions were chosen from a total of 49 sketch problems (Appendix D). As presented in Figure 4-2 and Figure 4-3, the five exampl es with the lowest level of the SP-Cr scores were compared to the top five solutions achiev ing the highest SP-Cr scores. The researcher thoroughly analy zed this data set based on the criteria identified in the sketch problem directions (Appe ndix B). The students were aske d to present four key terms (time, contrast, repetition, and ch ange) in their solutions and writ e about their visualized space. The analysis indicated that the representative lo w creative solutions missed at least one criterion whereas the highly rated ones cont ained all primary criteria in the drawings and narratives. To get more insight into visual imagery vividness, elaboration, and planning evident within creative performance, the representative low and high creative groups were compared on the quality of narrative elaboration, literal and me taphorical translation st yles, design graphics, perspective, and legibility. Figure 4-4 to 49 illustrate these comparisons between the representative low and high sketch problems on the rating criteria. Visual imagery vividness also was repres ented through quality of elaboration. The representative high crea tive performance group, as a whole, wr ote longer narratives than did the low group. An average length of narratives fr om the high group was 133 words whereas an average length of narratives fr om the low group was 73 words. Figure 4-4 shows examples of

PAGE 69

69 narrative elaboration comp aring these groups. The following is an example from the low creative group: The space is modern, open, and airy. The light coming from the unsheltered windows [is changed] with seasons and the hours of the da y. There is ample sea ting ranging from hard benches, cushiony benches to comfort side ch airs. The tall dark columns add height and drama to the space while playing of the windows. There is no focal point; each piece is an item to look at in and of itself. (70 word count) In contrast, the narrative re presents elaboration and is from the high creative group: When I look at the space that I have drawn, I see it more as spatia l and volumetric ideas that can be translated further. Time, contra st, repetition, and change occur simultaneously through large movements, such as the distinct transition from light to dark, positive to negative space as well as consistency in di stances from one object to another. Though many principles remain stagnant, graphi cally it keeps the eye moving around the perspective view. I wanted to k eep it strictly spat ial because honing in on small details is more a part of the final design process. In tr anslation, I see this space turning into a gallery space that can readily display something in an interesting fashion, or even certain aspects of a retail space (fitting rooms or display casing). (128 word count) As a whole, narratives of the low group e xplained elements on a drawing and did not represent visualization of students who produced them, while those of the high group described feelings and visualization of th e participants. In addition, the nu mber of trace sheets in the planning process differed between groups. On aver age, the representative low creative students employed at least one trace sheet to create a fi nal solution; whereas, the representative high creative group used none. Perhaps the participants who performed high crea tive solutions did not need any trace sheets because they visualized their design more vividly than those with low creative solutions who needed trace sheets to help clarify their vi sualization. Another explanation is that the high creative group had better sketching skills. To solve the sketch problem, the low group literally translated the key terms in their designs, while the high group employed more me taphorical thinking in representing the key terms in their designs. For example, a low creative solution in Figure 4-5 A used a clock to represent a quality of time and flowers to show a meaning of change. Similarly, in Figure 4-5 B,

PAGE 70

70 time was represented through a dining set, and change was illustrated through a doorway. A high creative solution in Figure 4-6 A interpreted time as a sense pulling a viewer into the drawing and considered change as different spaces be tween walls and ceilings. Another metaphorical solution in Figure 4-6 B represented time through differences between inside and outside and considered change as movement from the front to end of the space. Interestingly, only low creative solutions contained pieces of furniture in their drawings and conn ected meanings of the key words to the furniture. It is possible to hypo thesize that the student s who produced those low creative solutions focused on elem ents within the space (furniture ) not on shaping the space itself whereas their peers in the high group thought wi th more complexity in designing a space with metaphorical qualities. In terms of design graphics, as seen in Figure 4-7, the low cr eatives contained linear and rectangular forms that influenced the static look of their design; whereas, the high creatives generated a stronger dynamic move ment in their designs by using curve and free-form elements (Ching, 1996). Furthermore, solutions in the high group employed movement from such curves to create perspective pulling a viewer into thei r spaces, while the low creative solutions did not make a connection between thei r drawings and a viewer. Quality of perspective also affects a viewers perception of dimensions, proportions, and scale of elements within a design (Ching, 1996). Using accurate proportions and scale of design elements, the high group, as a whol e, showed better quality pers pective technique than did the low group (Figure 4-8). Additionally, designed sp aces of the high group were open on one side or end, which identified presence of adjacent areas beyond that space. In contrast, designed spaces of the low group mostly were enclos ed, with a more limited perspective.

PAGE 71

71 Considering quality of legibil ity, the two groups differed on the level of contrast and line weight in their solutions. Draw ings from the high group showed high contrast and clear line weight, while the other groups drawings appear ed less legible with low contrast and poorly defined line weight (Figure 4-9). Based on the re sults described above, th e qualitative analysis indicated that judged cr eative performance, as an external representation of visualization, positively related to vividness of visual imagery or internal visualization. Furthermore, these two features associated with elabora tion, and planning evident, as di mensions of creativity in design performance. Question 3: Do Differences in Creative Performance Vary by Level of Creative Personality? In order to explore how well creative personality predicted judged creative performance, correlations between the ACL-Cr and SP-Cr scores were examined. A linear regression analysis was performed to find relationships between ove rall levels of the cr eative personality and performance. This analysis found no statistically significant correlation ( r = .17, p = .245, t = 1.177). This finding was unexpected and inconsiste nt with a previous study using a design majors sample ( r = .33, p = .046; Meneely & Portillo, 2005). To gain more information, average SP-Cr scores were calculated based on a medi an split that was performed on the ACL-Cr to produce low and high ACL-Cr groups. Although mean SP-Cr scores of th e low and high ACL-Cr groups, as presented in Table 4-6, seemed different, an Independent-Samples t test indicated no significant relationship with t (47) = 1.891, p = .065. As a final result, creative personality did not predict judged creative performance for this study. Question 4: What, if Any, Relationships Exis t among Overall Creativi ty, Elaboration, and Planning Evident in Creative Performance? The qualitative findings from research question two indicated that creativity associated with an overall quality of el aboration and planning eviden t in design performance. For

PAGE 72

72 quantitative results, a reliability of .92 revealed a very high degree of internal consistency for the rated scores among the dimensions of the sket ch problem, including crea tivity, elaboration, and planning evident. Regression analyses were perf ormed and indicated sign ificant linear trends among those three dimensions. Scatter plots of thos e trends are depicted in Figure 4-10 to 4-12. A Pearson-Correlations analysis, shown in Table 4-7, also reveal ed very strongly significant relationships within those three dimensions. In addition, to gain more insight into how we ll overall levels of cr eativity, elaboration, and planning evident in design performance predicte d vividness of visual im agery, linear regression analyses were performed to find correlations between average rated scores on elaboration (SPEl) and planning evident (SP-Pl) and the VVIQ sc ores. (The relationship between average rated scores on creativity (SP-Cr) a nd the VVIQ was performed and de scribed for research question two already.) Like the SP-Cr, th e analyses found significant rela tionship neither between the SPEl and VVIQ ( r = .024, p = .873, t = .161) nor between the SP-Pl and VVIQ ( r = .024, p = .871, t = .164). To examine how well creative personality pr edicted judged scores on elaboration and planning evident in design performance, linear regression analyses we re performed to find correlations between the SP-El a nd SP-Pl and ACL-Cr scores. (The relationship between the SPCr and ACL-Cr was performed and described for research question three already.) The analyses found statistically sign ificant relationship neither be tween the SP-El and ACL-Cr ( r = .094, p = .518, t = -.651) nor between the SP-Pl and ACL-Cr ( r = .093, p = .527, t = -.638). Finally, as shown in Table 4-8, Pearson Correlation analysis was performed to summarize the correlations among creative personality, visual imagery vivi dness, and judged creativity, elaboration, and planning evident.

PAGE 73

73 Summary First, the data revealed that the sample was characterized by a range of creative personality traits. Most frequently, the participants report ed intelligent, artistic, imaginative, capable, enthusiastic, ambitious, sensitive, curious, humorous independent, adaptabl e, interest-wide, and confident as adjectives that best described themselves. Sec ond, vividness of visual imagery scores only for eyes closed significantly correlated with creative personality scores. A negative correlation appeared; participants with lower levels of creative personality visualized more vividly when they closed their eyes than those w ith higher levels of cr eative personality. Third, strong correlations were found am ong judged creativity, elaborati on, and planning evident within design performance. Fourth, vividness of visual imagery scores did not significantly co rrelate with judged scores on creativity, elaboration, an d planning evident in design perf ormance. In the other words, scores on the internal visuali zation did not statistically pr edict scores on the external representation of visualization in this study. However, the qu alitative analysis indicated differences in vividness of visual imagery, qualit y of elaboration, and planning evident between the lowand high-level groups. The groups differe d on their sketch problem in terms of the quality of narrative elaboration, literal and me taphorical translation st yles, design graphics, perspective, and legibility. Fifth, no significant correlations were found between creative personality scores and judged scor es on creativity, elaboration, or planning evident within design performance. Finally, within design performan ce itself, correlations emerged among creative personality, visual imagery vivi dness, and judged creativity, ela boration, and planning evident.

PAGE 74

74 Table 4-1. Most frequently selected adjectives Table 4-2. Descriptive sta tistics on primary variables Table 4-3. Visual imagery vividness sc ores by creative personality scores

PAGE 75

75 Table 4-4. Visual imagery vividness a nd creative personal ity correlations Table 4-5. Visual imagery vividness sc ores by creative performance scores Table 4-6. Creative performance scor es by creative personality scores Table 4-7. Creativity, elaboration, and planning evident correlations

PAGE 76

76 Table 4-8. Correlations between primary variables

PAGE 77

77 405060Creative Personality Scores 20 40 60 80V V I Q S c o r e s w i t h E y e s C l o s e d VV IQ Scores with Eyes Closed = 88.44 + -0.55 aclcr R-Square = 0.10 Figure 4-1. Visual imagery vividne ss scores with eyes closed by creative personality scores

PAGE 78

78 A B C D E Figure 4-2. Representative low cr eative performance. A) Exampl e 1. B) Example 2. C) Example 3. D) Example 4. E) Example 5.

PAGE 79

79 A B C D E Figure 4-3. Representative high cr eative performance. A) Exampl e 1. B) Example 2. C) Example 3. D) Example 4. E) Example 5.

PAGE 80

80 A B Figure 4-4. Narrative elaborati on comparison. A) Low creative performance. B) High creative performance.

PAGE 81

81 A B Figure 4-5. Literally solution. A) Low creative performance 1. B) Low creative performance 2.

PAGE 82

82 A B Figure 4-6. Metaphorical solution. A) High cr eative performance 1. B) High creative performance 2.

PAGE 83

83 A B Figure 4-7. Graphic comparison. A) Low creative performance. B) High creative performance.

PAGE 84

84 A B Figure 4-8. Quality of perspectiv e comparison. A) Low creative pe rformance. B) High creative performance.

PAGE 85

85 A B Figure 4-9. Legibility quality comparison. A) Low creative pe rformance. B) High creative performance.

PAGE 86

86 1.002.003.004.00Average Creativity Scores 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00A v e r a g e E l a b o r a t i o n S c o r e s Average Elaboration Scores = 0.79 + 0.77 spcr R-Square = 0.65 Figure 4-10. Elaboration scores by creativity scores 1.002.003.004.00Average Creativity Scores 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00A v e r a g e P l a n n i n g E v i d e n t S c o r e s Average Planning Evident Scores = 1.15 + 0.70 spcr R-Square = 0.51 Figure 4-11. Planning evident scores by creativity scores

PAGE 87

87 1.002.003.004.00Average Planning Evident Scores 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00A v e r a g e E l a b o r a t i o n S c o r e s Average Elaboration Scores = 0.23 + 0.87 sppl R-Square = 0.78 Figure 4-12. Elaboration scores by planning evident scores

PAGE 88

88 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION Summary of the Research Background and Purposes This thesis study aimed to examine relations hips existing between creativity and visual imagery within the field of interior design. Creati vity has been widely accepted in interior design as valuable leading to innovative ideas and performance, yet little research has been conducted in this area. This thesis study a ddressed this challenge by studying the role of visual imagery in creative interior design student s through their internal visual ization and through their design performance. By reviewing pert inent literature on the subject, we find that visual imagery appears central to creativity; many studies in ps ychological and educationa l areas have found this association. Finally, results from the current st udy offer recommendations to design educators on strengthening opportunities for visualization and creativity in the interi or design curriculum. Interpretation This discussion is separated into sections organized by the preliminary analysis and correlation analysis of four main research que stions. Each section summarizes importance and findings, as well as discusses relevant theo ries, empirical studies, supporting data, and implications. Afterward, an implication precise to the interior design curriculum is introduced. At the end of the chapter, limitations of this st udy and directions for fu ture studies are provided. Interpreting Findings from the Preliminary Analysis According to Csikszentmihalyis (1988) dyna mic model of creativity, the person, one of the three primary components of creativity, is a st arting point of the creati ve process. To develop the curriculum or even make cha nge in individual courses, it is imperative that we must consider and understand the interior design student, whom we are trying to educate. By preliminarily analyzing data collected through instruments, fi ndings revealed information about the students

PAGE 89

89 personality traits and ability to visualize, which could enhance educators understanding of the students characteristics. Regarding the preliminary analysis of data co llected through instruments, the data from the ACL-Cr revealed that the sample, as a whole, achieved a somewhat but not significantly higher average creative personality score than did samples of previous published studies (Davis & Bull, 1978; Meneely & Portillo, 2005). The data from th e VVIQ indicated that a mean VVIQ score of the sample is consistent with college-students samples in previous stud ies (Isaac & Marks, 1994; McKelvie, 1995). Gaining insight into characteri stics of the student, the ACL-Cr data also revealed most frequently selected adjectives that best described the sample. Within those chosen adjectives, characteristics that are consistent with previous research on th e personality traits of highly creative art and design indi viduals consisted of imaginative, intelligent, and humorous (Davis, 1999; Portillo, 2002, Tardif & Sternberg, 1988). Csikszentmihalyi (1988) suggests that creativity involves the interacti on of the individual, domain, and field. Based upon findi ngs mentioned above, it is possi ble to interpret that the sample, as a whole, posses characteristics that co uld enhance their ability to generate creative process and performance. Besides the person, the other two component s of the creativity interaction also play an important role in creativity production. This could imply that the curriculum and educators, as components of the domain and field, should take part in encouraging the student to contribute cr eativity to the interior design domain. Interpreting Findings from the Correlation Analysis This section responds to the main research objective, aiming to examine relationships between creativity and visual imagery, by discus sing correlations among cr eativity features and vividness of visual imagery. It also extends the interpretation from the previous section by providing implications to people in the domain, particularly educat ors, to encourage creativity

PAGE 90

90 and ability to visualize in the in terior design curriculum that could increase creativity within the student and their design performance. Question 1: Do differences in vividness of visual imagery vary by level of creative personality? Research question one was developed to inves tigate potential correla tions between creative personality and vividness of visual imagery within the interior design stud ent. According to the literature review, the use of visual imagery, as a part of imagination, has been reported by highly creative persons. Personality traits of creativ e art and design individuals commonly include imaginative (Davis, 1999; Sternberg, 1985). Thus, results from this question were assumed to reveal relationships existing between these two features. By examining correlations between the ACLCr and VVIQ scores, findings indicated a significant relationship in a reve rse direction between creative pe rsonality and visual imagery vividness with eyes closed. The finding is unexpect ed and inconsistent wi th previous research (Kunzendorf & Reynolds, 2004-2005; McKelvie, 1995; Riquelme, 2002). This could result from inconvenient timing at the end of semester; some participants may be wo rried about their final exams and/or projects and did not take the tests seriously. A time constraint while administering the instruments could also affect the result; so me students may rush to complete the tasks and were not cautious to clearly unde rstand directions of the instru ments. Another reason could be ambiguity in defining vividness on the VVIQ. Differ ent persons identify degrees of their visual imagery vividness differently. In addition to th e VVIQ, items that are used to measure the vividness of visual imagery on th is test may be not sensitive enough to measure visualization within design students. Another significant result was found by perf orming a median split and an IndependentSamples t test. Students in the low level of creati ve personality achieve d significantly higher

PAGE 91

91 scores on their visual imagery vi vidness with eyes closed than their peers in the high level of creative personality. This result strengthens th e previous negative correlation between the ACLCr and VVIQ for eyes closed. This could imply th at students with low creative personality see pictures in their mind more clearly than their peers when they close their eyes. In the other words, closing eyes could help design student s who possess low creative personality visualize better and more vividly. This fi nding provides an implication to educators or even design students to develop visualizing with eyes closed to their teaching or learning process in order to promote the ability to effectively visualize. Question 2: Do differences in vividness of visual imagery vary by level of creative performance? Precedent research suggests that designers need both internal and ex ternal representations of ideas for design problem solving. Based on this notion, visual imagery (internal visualization) and design performance (external re presentation of visualization) we re assumed to associate with each other and potentially enhance design prob lem solving skills. Research question two was developed to examine this assumption. In the quantitative analysis, no significan t correlation was found between the VVIQ and SP-Cr scores. Since a paucity of research in design has mentioned the VVIQ, no pertinent previous studies can be compared with this fi nding. However, in general, this finding relatively supports the previous research of LeBoutillier and Marks (2003) suggesting that self-reported imagery is weakly associated with performance on creativity measures. Considering the assumption, the result is unexpe cted but could be attributed to several factors. First, as mentioned previously, the VVIQ may be not relevant enough to assess vividness of internal visualization within students in design disciplines. Sec ond, different levels of participants hand-sketching skills could influence this finding. This study did not pretest to

PAGE 92

92 determine a baseline of participants sketching skill. It may be that participants with lower sketching skills may have more difficulty drawing what they visualized than those with better skill sets. For example, seven participants complain ed that their solutions could have been better if they had been allowed to use a computer-aid ed program to represent their visualization. One participant even noted on her solution that she could not effectively present her visual imagery through hand sketching. Nowadays computer-aid ed design programs and information technology play an important role in design process a nd performance (Lawson, 2005). A number of design professionals and students prefer to employ those technologies to represent their design ideas rather rely on their own sketching. However, sk etching is still considered a core fundamental design skill for all designers (Council for In terior Design Accred itation, 2006). Another explanation for the inconsistent findings between this study and previous research might be the impact of data collection. As mentioned previous ly, collecting the data at the end of a semester may be negatively influenced by student fatigue. In addition, the data collec tion occurred in late afternoon sessions when participan ts may be tired from other courses and not as motivated to perform at their highest level. While the quantitative results did not find a statistical relationship between the VVIQ and judged creativity, results from the qualitative analysis di d support the asso ciation between vividness of visual imagery and cr eative performance. Differences in vividness of the internal visualization between students who produced the representative low and high creative performances showed clear differences in quality of elaboration and planni ng evident. This result is consistent with previous research that empl oyed qualitative methodology to investigate a role of visualization in creativity within design cont exts (Casakin & Goldschmidt, 2000; Goldschmidt & Smolkov, 2006; Goldschmidt & Tatsa, 2005). Ability to think and communicate visually is

PAGE 93

93 recognized as a hallmark of creative designe rs. A person who produces creative process and performance is someone who sees pictures in hi s or her minds eye more easily and vividly than others (Flowers & Garbin, 1989). Based on the qualitative findings, the sketch pr oblem, as an external representation of visualization, may be affected by vividness of the in ternal visualization within the student. In the design problem solving process, if a student clearly visualizes his or her designed space, this may be beneficial for design problem solving and the development of design solutions. Question 3: Do differences in creative perfor mance vary by level of creative personality? Creative performance successfully incorporat es novelty and appr opriateness (Amabile, 1996). To understand creative perfor mance, many researchers have focused on the role of creative personality in producti on of creative products or pr ocesses (Davis, 1999; Domino & Giuliani, 1997; Meneely & Port illo, 2005; Sawyer, 2003). Resear ch question three aims to examine whether correlations existed between th ose two components of creativity in interior design. Based on this literature, results from th is research question were assumed to reveal correlations between creativity in the student and their design performance. Statistical analyses of the ACL-Cr and SP-Cr scores showed that cr eative personality did not predict judged creativ ity in design performance. This re sult was not expected and contradicts other published findings. Previous studies using the ACL-Cr have found a relationship between creative personality and judged creative performance (Domino & Giuliani, 1997; Meneely & Portillo, 2005). However, it is worth noting that Domino and Giulia nis (1997) research uncovered a significant relationship between creative personality and judged creative performance in professional photographers, but they did not find a significant association between ACL-Cr scores and cr eativity-judged scores in pho tography students. Creative performance in students may be more erratic than that of professionals.

PAGE 94

94 Furthermore, this result could be attributed to limitations of this thesis study. Although the sample size employed in this study was large eno ugh for the qualitative analysis of the sketch problem, it may be too small for the quantitative analysis of the ACL-Cr. According to Amabile (1983, 1996), creativity productivity involves task motivation, domain-relevant skills, and creativity-relevant skills. Lack of any one of these components causes unsuccessful creativity production. Undertaking the sketch problem session in late afternoon could negatively affect the students motivation to complete the task. Mo reover, a limitation of hand-sketching skill in design performance could impact a component of domain-relevant skills in producing creative performance. Another possible reason to expl ain the unexpected finding is derived from the reviewed theoretical and empirical research su ggesting that, besides cr eative personality, there still are numerous factors taking part in crea tive performance. Alt hough creative personality traits support one to be potent ially creative, it is not enough for that one to contribute anything creative to a domain if the society that one live s in does not accept his or her idea (Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2003). Amabile (1996) also articu lates a role of personality traits in creativity in the following statement: Particular clusters of personality traits are found fairly consistently among individuals exhibiting high levels of creativitybut, ag ain, they are not sufficient in and of themselves. Certainly, any given individual ev en one exhibiting a pa rticular creative personality-trait constellation is not creative at all times or in all domains. (p. 83) However, in the interior design education, it is still important to promote creativity in students as they are a fundamental component to produce creativity to the domain. Furthermore, opinions and judgments of the educator, profes sional, and expert are really noteworthy and cannot be forgotten in the teaching and lear ning process. Accordingly, a student who can contribute creative performance to the interior design domain is someone who does not only have potential to be creative but has potential to realize cr iteria in the domain as well.

PAGE 95

95 Question 4: What, if any, relationships exis t among overall creativity, elaboration, and planning evident in creative performance? Even though it is universally endorsed that novelty and appropriateness are two major characteristics of the creative artifact, other di mensions in each domain also influence creativity production (Amabile, 1996). To raise creativity in the interior design curriculum, we need to know influencing features in our domain that c ould promote an overall quality of creative design performance. Based on dimensions employed to a ssess design performance in this thesis study, research question four was developed to expl ore if there were c onnections existing among judged dimensions: creativity, elab oration, and planning evident. It was assumed that these three dimensions related to each other and could increase creativity in design performance. Results from this research que stion clearly suppor t the assumption. Besi des the qualitative finding described in research question two, by employing the sta tistical analysis, internal consistency reliabilities indicated a very high degree of associati ons among the three dimensions. This result implies that elaboration and planning evident are dimensions that could define and enhance creativity in design performance. This fi nding, especially elaborati on, is consistent with previous research exploring f eatures fostering creativity. Re garding Guilford (1967), fluency, flexibility, originality, and ela boration are defined as four em inent functions in creative performance generated from creative thinking. Ei ther each or a combination of these four functions is always employed in evalua ting creative performance (Amabile, 1996). Considering the qualitative findings, the repres entative high creative performance appeared better planned and contained more details both in drawing and na rrative parts than did the low group. It is reasonable to suggest that one way to define a nd enhance creativity in design performance is to promote the students abilit y to well elaborate and plan their design and emphasize the role of elaboration and planning evident in the curricu lum. In addition to

PAGE 96

96 elaboration and planning evident, it is also im portant to note the high group also represented better quality in perspective, contrast, and line weight, as well as employed curve and free-form design elements to generate dynamic movement in their design. These findings could be helpful for the educator to emphasize them in the design teaching process, or even for the design student to use them as guidance to deve lop creative design performance. Enhancing Creativity and Visual Imag ery in Interior Design Education Imagery is important, but in Western culture, la nguage is king. In sc hool we steadily wrap our childrens brains in the cool web of la nguageit would be terrib le if we didnt, but there is a cost to everything. By neglecting imagery we risk th e withering of a whole set of quite remarkable mental cap acities. (Robertson, 2003, p. 3) We have been taught to learn and think l ogically from the earlie st grade levels. Less emphasis is traditionally placed on the role of mental imagery in enhancing creativity and learning ability; these skills are not well promot ed in school or college curricula (Ahsen, 1996; Robertson, 2003; Shaw, 1984; Tracy, Fricano, & Greco, 2000-2001). Ironically, in art and design disciplines, the essential role of imagination a nd even creativity leading to the development of visual imagery has not yet been stressed in the art and design curricula (Dineen, 2006). In the design process, a designer has to visua lize something that has not been created while solving a design problem. In the other words, a desi gner needs to see a future design in his or her minds eye. Then, the design is developed through ex ternal representations, such as a drawing or model, in order to communicate the designers vi sualization to others. However, considering design curricula, the role of external repres entations of visualizat ion, such as sketching, rendering, and using computer-aided design program, is principally emphas ized rather than the importance role of the internal visualization. Considering the implications from the creativ ity and visual imagery literature and this thesis study, we see that visual imagery or the internal visu alization relates to external

PAGE 97

97 representations and plays an important role in fo stering creativity in design performance. As a result, to enhance student design problem solving skill and creative design performance, the importance of visual imagery should be seriously considered in the inte rior design curriculum. As seen in Figure 5-1, the implication precise to the interior design curr iculum is represented based on the conceptual framework, which focuse s on the person and produc t in interior design. In order to achieve creative performance, a person is supposed to have high quality of creativity-relevant skills, motivation, and dom ain-relevant skills (Amabile, 1983, 1996). Based upon the present study, creative persona lity and the ability to vividl y visualize are involved in creativity-relevant skills supporting creativit y in design performance. Previous published research has indicated that creative personality takes a part in crea tive performance. Although this study could not completely support that id ea, it indicated a correl ation between creative personality and the internal vi sualization, which encourages cr eativity in design performance. This connection suggests that by closing eyes while visualizing, students with low creative personality could create better a nd clearer visualization than their peers with high creative personality. Therefore, visualizing with eyes cl osed is possibly helpful for students in the low level of creative personality to develop their creative design performance. Focusing on design performance, the results from this present study outlines that creative design performance depends on the students ability to well organize and fully elaborate a de sign. Finally, this study also posits that a students task motivation and a ppropriate skill set increase his or her ability to perform creatively. Based on the findings and implications from this current study, it is beneficial for educators to encourage visual imagery vividness in the interior design curriculum in order to promote creative performance in the domain. Be sides focusing on only external representations,

PAGE 98

98 educators should employ and enhance the ability to creative vivid in ternal visualization in their teaching process. This may possibly enhance student skills to develop external representations as well as creatively solve design pr oblems. One technique, easily inco rporated into the curriculum, is to encourage visualization of design problems with eyes closed; this could well help students who are less creative than thei r peers to more effectively solve a creative design problem. Limitations Some limitations of this current thesis st udy should be acknowledged. Although the sample size employed in this study was sensible to collect the qualitative data through design performance, it may be considered too small to detect relationships between visual imagery and creativity through standardized instruments (ACL-Cr and VVIQ). This may have produced results that were inconsistent with previous studies that employed a larger sample size. Another limitation probably rela tes to the VVIQ. Since it was originally developed and has been mostly employed in psychological and edu cational applications, the VVIQ may be not sensitive enough to measure visual imagery in inte rior design. Another concern surfaced in the administration of the test where test directi ons appeared somewhat ambiguous. After collecting the VVIQ data, some participants complained that the rating scale was unclear, and they were not certain if they rated degrees of visu al imagery vividness co rrectly on the scale. Further, the timing of data collection also a ppeared to be a limita tion of the current study. Data collection occurred at the end of a semester ; additionally, testing se ssions occurred at the end of the day. Student participants may have be en less motivated to accomplish the tasks given because of the semester demands, distractions and fatigue. According to Amabile (1983, 1996), task motivation strongly influences creativity; motivation consists of two elements: a persons baseline attitude to the task and a persons per ceptions of his or her r easons for commencing the

PAGE 99

99 task. Also, collecting data late in the day, participants may rush to complete the tasks in time, regardless of the quali ty of performance. Finally, a limitation may relate to hand sketchin g skills. Sketching is generally assumed as a basic skill in the de sign field (Lawson & Menezes, 2006; Van der Lugt, 2005), so this present study did not conduct a pretest to determine a baseline of drawing ability. Since drawing quality was not controlled, there may be differences in vi sualization, sketching ability, or motivation that may have impacted the findings. Directions for Future Research Based upon the findings from this current study, we see that in ternal visualization plays a role in creative design performance. In addition, visual imagery also positively relates to quality of elaboration and planning evid ent which supports creativity in the external representation of visualization. This establishes a path for future studies on the role of visu al imagery in creativity within design. Starting with sampling, the limitation mentioned in the previous section may be addressed by selecting a sample size that is appropriate to the research ques tions posed. If the study employs qualitative methodology, a sample size could be smaller and still produce valid results; whereas, quantitative methodology will require a la rger sample size. In the present study, the qualitative data appeared insi ghtful in better understanding crea tivity and visual imagery in design. It is recommended that future studies sh ould consider qualitative methodologies, such as protocol analyses, interviews, a nd focus-groups, to gain more information on this subject. To prevent negative effects of task motivation on the sample, conducting research at the beginning or middle of a semester is recommended to lessen distractions in student participants. Gathering data across the semester would yi eld more insights into design progress. Finally, it would be

PAGE 100

100 interesting to conduct an interdisciplinary exte nsion of this study to see how interior design students compare to those in art, architect ure, and other allied fields of design. To address the sketch problem limitation, it is recommended to perform a pretest to determine a baseline of participants sketchi ng skill to control for bias. Instead of drawing, researchers may also consider testing visualization with thre e-dimension modeling to measure creative design performance. Modeli ng also is a core skill for inte rior designers who visualize in three dimensions.

PAGE 101

101 Figure 5-1. Visualizatio n in design creativity

PAGE 102

102 APPENDIX A UFIRB APPROVAL

PAGE 103

103

PAGE 104

104

PAGE 105

105 APPENDIX B DESCRIPTION OF TH E SKETCH PROBLEM Department of Interior Design College of Design, Construction, and Planning 336 Architecture Building, University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32611 Creativity and Imagery in Interior Design Students: Exploring Relationships among Creative Personality, Performance, and Vividness of Visual Imagery Directions and Descriptions of the Sketch Problem For this task, you will complete a drawing and discuss your ideas about the design in writing. You will be given a set of supplies to work with and will complete your drawing in thirty minutes and your written description in ten minutes. Drawing Consider the meanings of time, contrast, repe tition, and change, and visualize a transitional space within a building that connects these qualities Imagine this space fully, and then, sketch a transitional interior space within a building according to your imagination on the provided 11 x 17 white sheet. Also, you are able to use the trace sh eets and request extra sheets to create your drawings. Writing Describe the experience of being in the sp ace, including the setting, feelings, or other details based on your imagination. Using the lett er-size sheet, write no more than one page.

PAGE 106

106 APPENDIX C THE SKETCH PROBLEM ASSESSMENT Department of Interior Design College of Design, Construction, and Planning 336 Architecture Building, University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32611 Creativity and Imagery in Interior Design Students: Exploring Relationships among Creative Personality, Performance, and Vividness of Visual Imagery Description of the Sketch Problem A sketch problem was designed for this thesis study to determine the level of creativity in design product. To research imagery and creati vity, the student participants were asked to complete a drawing and narrative that would be ev aluated for creativity by three expert judges. The participants were given a se t of supplies to work with a nd then asked to consider the meanings of time, contrast, repetition, and cha nge, and visualize a transitional space within a building that connects these qualities. They were al so asked to describe the experience of being in the space, including the setting, feelings, or other details based on their imagination. Instructions of the Sk etch Problem Assessment Please rate the drawings on a 1.0-to-5.0 scale sole ly based on your considerate, but subjective opinions of their three dimensions prov ided on the following pages. Start with the first dimension and rate all drawings in relation to one another. After you finish rating the first dimension of the drawings, pleas e rate the second and then third dimensions with the same method. Criteria employed to rate the drawings are only your definitions of the given three dimensions and your opinions. Since you are the expert in interior de sign, feel free to rate these drawings on the basis of your own expert sense.

PAGE 107

107 APPENDIX D SOLUTIONS OF THE SKETCH PROBLEM

PAGE 108

108

PAGE 109

109

PAGE 110

110

PAGE 111

111

PAGE 112

112 LIST OF REFERENCES Ahsen, A. (1996). Imagery, cognitive scienc e and education: The cognitive-plus. Journal of Mental Imagery, 20 (1), 59-66. Albert, R. S., & Runco, M. A. (1999). A history of research on creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 16-31). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Amabile, T. M. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 997-1013. Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity New York: Springer-Verlag. Amabile, T. (1996). Creativity in context Boulder, CO: Westview. Auh, M., & Johnston, R. (2001). A comparison of the consensual assessment technique and expert judges evaluations usi ng criteria for assessing creati vity in musical compositions and invented stories by children. Proceedings of the Change and Education Research Group (CERG), UTS. Retrieved April 23, 2007, from http://www.tld.uts.edu.au/publ ications/2001_cerg_conf.html Averill, J. R. (2005). Emotions as mediators and as products of creative activity. In J. C. Kaufman, & J. Baer (Eds.), Creativity across domains: Faces of the muse (pp. 225-243). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Baer, J., & Kaufman, J. C. (2005). Whence crea tivity? Overlapping and dual-aspect skills and traits. In J. C. Kaufman, & J. Baer (Eds.), Creativity across domains: Faces of the muse (pp. 313-320). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Baer, J., & Kaufman, J. C. (2006). Creativity res earch in English-speakin g countries. In J. C. Kaufman, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The international handbook of creativity (pp. 10-38). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Baer, J., Kaufman, J. C., & Gentile, C. A. ( 2004). Extension of the consensual assessment technique to nonparallel creative products. Creativity Research Journal, 16 (1), 113-117. Balchin, T. (2006). Evaluating creativity through consensual assessment. In N. Jackson, M. Oliver, M. Shaw, & J. Wisdom (Eds.), Developing creativity in higher education: An imaginative curriculum (pp. 173-182). New York: Routledge. Barnard, S. (1992). Interior design creativity: The developm ent and testing of a methodology for the consensual assessment of projects Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic. Block, N. (1981). Introduction: What is the issue? In N. Block (Ed.), Imagery (pp. 1-18). Cambridge: MIT Press.

PAGE 113

113 Buros, O. S. (1985). The ninth mental measurements yearbook Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements. Casakin, H. & Goldschmidt, G. (2000). Reasoni ng by visual analogy in design problem-solving: The role of guidance. Journal of Planning and Design: Environment & Planning, B27 105-119. Chvez-Eakle, R. A., Lara, M. C., & Cruz-Fue ntes, C. (2006). Personal ity: A possible bridge between creativity and psychopathology? Creativity Research Journal, 18 (1), 27-38. Ching, F. D. K. (1996). Architecture: Form, space, and order (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Colangelo, N., Kerr, b., Hallowell, K., Huesman, R., &Gaeth, J. (1992). Th e Iowa Inventiveness Inventory: Toward a measure of mechanical inventiveness. Creativity Research Journal 5, 157-163. Council for Interior Design Accreditation. (2006). Council for Interior Design Accreditation Professional Standards. Retr ieved January 12, 2007, from http://www.accreditid.org/profstandards.html Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). Societ y, culture, and person: A systems view of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity: Cont emporary psychological perspectives (325339). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2006). Forward: Developi ng creativity. In N. Jackson, M. Oliver, M. Shaw, & J. Wisdom (Eds.), Developing creativity in highe r education: An imaginative curriculum (pp. xviii-xx). New York: Routledge. Daniels, S. R. (1995). Images of creativity: Th e relationship of imagery, everyday cognition, and creative potential among high school students with exceptional abilities in the arts and sciences (Doctoral dissertation, Univer sity of Wisconsin Madison, 1995). Dissertation Abstracts International, 56 (05), 1708. Daniels-McGhee, S., & Davis, G. A. (1994). The imagery-creativity connection. Journal of Creative Behavior, 28 (3), 151-176. Davis, G. (1999). Creativity is forever (4th rev. ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt. Davis, G. A., & Bull, K. S. (1978). Strengthening affective component of creativity in a college course. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70 (5), 833-836. Dineen, R. (2006). Views from the chalk face: Lecturers and students perspectives on the development of creativity in art and design. In N. Jackson, M. Oliver, M. Shaw, & J. Wisdom (Eds.), Developing creativity in higher ed ucation: An imaginative curriculum (pp. 109-117). New York: Routledge.

PAGE 114

114 Dohr, J. (1982). Creativeness: A criterion for selecting a program development approach. Journal of Interior Desi gn Education and Research, 8 (2), 24-28. Domino, G. (1970). Identification of potentially creative persons fr om the Adjective Check List. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 35 48-51. Domino, G. (1994). Assessment of creativity with the ACL: An empirical comparison of four scales. Creativity Research Journal, 7 (1), 21-33. Domino, G., & Giuliani, I. (1997). Creativity in three samples of photographers: A validation of the Adjective Check List Creativity Scale. Creativity Research Journal, 10 (2&3), 193-200. Drake, S. M. (1996). Guided imagery and education: Theory, practice and experience. Journal of Mental Imagery, 18 (1&2). Edgar, I. R. (2004). Guide to Imagework: Imagination-based research methods New York: Routledge. Feldman, D. H., & Gardner, H. (2003). The crea tion of multiple intellig ences theory: A study in high-level thinking. In R. K. Sawyer, V. JohnSteiner, S. Moran, R. J. Sternberg, D. H. Feldman, J. Nakamura, & M. Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.), Creativity and development (pp. 139-185). Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press. Finke, R. A. (1989). Principles of mental imagery Cambridge: The MIT Press. Finke, R. (1990). Creative imagery: Discoveries and inventions in visualization. Erlbaum, NJ: Hillsdale. Fowles, D. (1991). Interior design education in the year 2000: A challenge to change. Journal of Interior Design Education and Research, 17 (2), 17-24. Flowers, J. H., & Garbin, C. P. (1989). Creativity and perception. In J. A. Glover, R. R. Ronning, & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of Creativity: Perspectiv es on individual differences (pp. 147-162). New York: Plenum Press. Gardner, H. (1993). Creating minds New York: Basic Books. Goldschmidt, G. & Smolkov, M. (2006). Variance s in the impact of visual stimuli on design problem solving performance. Design Studies, 27 549-569. Goldschmidt, G., & Tatsa, D. (2005). How good are good ideas? Correlates of design creativity. Design Studies, 26 (6), 593-611. Gough, H. G., & Heilbrun, A. B. (1983). The Adjective Check List manual (1983 edition). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

PAGE 115

115 Gruber, H. E., & Davis, S. N. (1988). In ching our way up Mount Olympus: The evolvingsystems approach to creative thinki ng. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychological perspectives (pp. 243-270). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gruber, H. E., & Wallace, D. B. (1999). The case study method and evolving systems approach for understanding unique creative people at work. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 93-115). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5 (9), 444-454. Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence New York: McGraw-Hill. Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. (1988). The c onditions of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity: Cont emporary psychological perspectives (pp. 11-38). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Helson, R. (1996). In search of the creative personality. Creativity Research Journal, 9 295-306. Helson, R., & PALS, J. (2000). Creativity potential creative achievement, and personal growth. Journal of Personality, 68 1-27. Holt, R. R. (1964). Imagery: Th e return of the ostracized. American Psychologist, 19 254-264. Isaac, A. R., & Marks, D. F. (1994). Individua l differences in mental imagery experience: Developmental changes and specialization. British Journal of Psychology, 85 (4), 479-500. Kaufman, J. C., & Baer, J. (2005a). Introduction: How people think, work, and act creatively in diverse domains. In J. C. Kaufman, & J. Baer (Eds.), Creativity across domains: Faces of the muse (pp. xiii-xvii). Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kaufman, J. C., & Baer, J. (2005b). The amusement pa rk theory of creativity. In J. C. Kaufman, & J. Baer (Eds.), Creativity across domains: Faces of the muse (pp. 321-328). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kaufmann, G. (1979). Visual imagery and its relation to problem solving New York: Columbia University Press. Khatena, J. (1984). Imagery and creative imagination Buffalo, NY: Creative Education Foundation. Kokotovich, V., & Purcell, T. (2000). Mental synt hesis and creativity in de sign: an experimental examination. Design Studies, 21 437-449. Kosslyn, S. M. (1980). Image and mind Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Kosslyn, S. M. (1985). Stalking the mental image. Psychology Today, 19 (5), 23-28.

PAGE 116

116 Kosslyn, S. M. (1994). Image and brain: The resolution of the imagery debate Cambridge: MIT Press. Kosslyn, S. M., Thompson, W. L., & Ganis, G. (2006). The case for mental imagery New York: Oxford University Press. Kunzendorf, R., & Reynolds, K. (2004-2005). On the cognitive function of vi sual images and the development of individual differences. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 24 (3), 245-257. Lawson, B. (2005). Oracles, draughtsmen, and agen ts: The nature of knowle dge and creativity in design and the role of IT. Automation in Construction, 14 (3), 383-391. Lawson, B., & Menezes, A. (2006). Ho w designers perceive sketches. Design Studies, 27 571585. LeBoutillier, N. & Marks, D. F. (2003). Mental imagery and creativity: A meta-analytic review study. British Journal of Psychology, 94 29-44. Leman, M. (2005). Musical Creativity Researc h. In J. C. Kaufman, & J. Baer (Eds.), Creativity across domains: Faces of the muse (pp. 103-122). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Liddament, T. (2000). The myths of imagery. Design Studies, 21 589-606. MacKinnon, D. W. (1962). The nature and nurture of creative talent. American Psychologist, 17 484-495. MacKinnon, D. W. (1978). In search of human effectivene ss: Identifying and developing creativity. Buffalo, NY: Creative Education Foundation. Marks, D. F. (1972). Individual differences in th e vividness of visual im agery and their effects on function. In P.W. Sheehan (Ed.), The function and nature of imagery (pp. 83-108). New York: Academic Press. Marks, D. F. (1973). Visual imagery di fferences in the recall of pictures. British Journal of Psychology, 64 17-24. Marks, D. F. (1995). New directi ons for mental imagery research. Journal of Mental Imagery 19, 153-170. Marks, D. F. (n.d.). Vividness of Visual Imag ery Questionnaire (VVIQ) Retrieved January 22, 2007, from www.staffcity.ac.uk/d.marks/vviq.htm Mayer, R. E. (1999). Fifty years of creativ ity research. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 449-460). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

PAGE 117

117 McCoy, J. M., & Evans, G. W. (2002). The pot ential role of the physical environment in fostering creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 14 (3&4), 409-426. McKelvie, S. J. (1995). Vividness of visual im agery: Measurement, nature, function & dynamics New York: Brandon House. Meneely, J. M. (2002). Freedom a nd constraint in the design pro cess: An empirical study of student profiles of creativity. Masters thesis, University of Kentucky, Kentucky. Meneely, J., & Portillo, M. (2005). The adaptabl e mind in design: Relating personality, cognitive style, and creative performance. Creativity Research Journal, 17 (2&3), 155-166. Miller, A. M. (2005). Fun in the workplace: Toward an environment-behavior framework relating office design, employee cr eativity, and job satisfaction. Ma sters thesis, University of Florida, Florida. Mish, F. C. (Ed.). (1999). Merriam-Websters: Co llegiate dictionary (10th ed.). Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster. Mooney, R. L. (1963). A conceptual model for inte grating four approaches to the identification of creative talent. In C. W. Taylor, & F. Barron (Eds.), Scientific creativity: Its recognition and development (pp. 331-339). New York: Wiley. Morrison, R. G. & Wallace, B. (2001). Imager y vividness, creativity and the visual arts. Journal of Mental Imagery, 25 (3&4), 135-152. Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2003). Creativ ity in later life. In R. K. Sawyer, V. JohnSteiner, S. Moran, R. J. Sternberg, D. H. Feldman, J. Nakamura, & M. Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.), Creativity and development (pp. 186-216). Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press. National Council for Interior Desi gn Qualification. (2004, July). NCIDQ definition of interior design Washington, DC. Paletz, S. B. F. (2003). Creativity ac ross cultures: Conceptions and values. Dissertation Abstracts International, 65 (02), 1074. (UMI No. 3121636) Paivio, A. (1969). Mental imagery in associative learning and memory. Psychological Review, 76 241-263. Plucker, J. A. (2005). The (relatively) generalist vi ew of creativity. In J. C. Kaufman, & J. Baer (Eds.), Creativity across domains : Faces of the muse (pp. 307-312). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Plucker, J. A., & Renzulli, J. S. (1999). Psychometric approaches to the study of haman creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 35-61). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

PAGE 118

118 Portillo, M. (1996). Uncovering im plicit theories of creativity in beginn ing design students. Journal of Interior Design, 22 (2), 15-24. Portillo, M. (2000). Creativity and narrative in Eva Maddox associates design beyond space. Journal of Interior Design, 26 (2), 41-57. Portillo, M. (2002). Creativity defi ned: Implicit theories in the professions of Interior Design, Architecture, Landscape Arch itecture, and Engineering. Journal of Interior Design, 28 (1), 10-26. Pylyshyn, Z. (2003). Seeing and visualizing: Its not what you think Cambridge: MIT Press. Riquelme, H. (2002). Creative imagery in the East and West. Creativity Research Journal, 14 (2), 281-282. Robertson, I. H. (2003). Opening the minds eye New York: St. Martins Press. Runco, M. A. (1990). Implicit theori es and ideational creativity. In M. A. Runco, & R. S. Albert (Eds.), Theories of creativity (pp. 234-252). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Sawyer, R. K. (2003). Introduction. In R. K. Sawyer V. John-Steiner, S. Moran, R. J. Sternberg, D. H. Feldman, J. Nakamura, & M. Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.), Creativity and development (pp. 3-11). Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press. Sawyer, R. K., John-Steiner, V., Moran, S., Ster nberg, R. J., Feldman, D. H., Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2003). In R. K. Sawyer, V. John-Steiner, S. Moran, R. J. Sternberg, D. H. Feldman, J. Nakamura, & M. Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.), Creativity and development (pp. 217-242). Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press. Shaw, G. A. (1984). The use of imagery by intelligent and by creative schoolchildren. The Journal of General Psychology, 112 (2), 153-171. Shepard, R. N. (1978). The mental image. American Psychologist, 33 125-137. Simonton, D. K. (1999). Creativity from a hisoriomet ric perspective. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 116-133). Cambridge: Camb ridge University Press. Smith-Bingham, R. (2006). Public policy, innovati on and the need for creativity. In N. Jackson, M. Oliver, M. Shaw, & J. Wisdom (Eds.), Developing creativity in higher education: An imaginative curriculum (pp. 10-18). New York: Routledge. Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Implicit theories of intelligence, creativity, and wisdom. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49 1589-1596. Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.). (1988a). The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychological perspectives Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

PAGE 119

119 Sternberg, R. J. (1988b). A three-facet model of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychological perspectives (125-147). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J. (1990). Wisdom and its relation to intelligence and creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Wisdom (pp. 142-159). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J. (1993). The concept of giftedness : A pentagonal implicit th eory. In G. R. Bock, & K. Ackrill (Eds.), The origins and development of high ability (pp. 5-21). New York: Wiley. Sternberg, R. J. (1999). A propulsion m odel of types of creative contribution. Review of General Psychology, 3 83-100. Sternberg, R. J. (2003). The development of creativ ity as a decision-making process. In R. K. Sawyer, V. John-Steiner, S. Moran, R. J. St ernberg, D. H. Feldman, J. Nakamura, & M. Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.), Creativity and development (pp. 91-138). Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press. Sternberg, R. J. (2006a). The nature of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 18 (1), 87-98. Sternberg, R. J. (2006b). Introduction. In J. C. Kaufman, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The international handbook of creativity (pp. 1-9). Cambridge: Camb ridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J., Kaufman, J. C., & Pretz, J. E. (2004). A propulsi on model of creative leadership. Innovation and Creativity Management, 13 145-153. Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1999). The concep t of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 3-15). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tardif, T. Z., & Sternberg, R. J. (1988). What do we know about creativity? In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity: Cont emporary psychological perspectives (pp. 429-440). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Taylor, C. W. (1988). Various approaches to and definitions of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity: Cont emporary psychological perspectives (pp. 99-121). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Torrance, E. P. (1984). Sounds and images producti ons of elementary school pupils as predictors of the creative achievements of young adults. Creative Child and Adult Quarterly, 7 8-14. Torrance, E. P. (1988). The nature of creativity as manifest in its testing. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity: Contem porary psychological perspectives (43-75). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tracy, R. J., Fricano, G., & Greco, N. (20002001). Images can be more powerful than memories. Imagination, Cognitive and Personality, 20 (1), 3-19.

PAGE 120

120 Van der Lugt, R. (2005). How sketching can aff ect the idea generation process in design group meeting. Design Studies, 26 (2), 101-122. Vithayathawornwong, S., & Danko, S. (2003). Th e role of the physical environment in supporting organizational creativity. Journal of Interior Design, 29 (1-2), 1-16. Walczyk, J. J., & Hall, V. C. (1988). The rela tionship between imagery vividness ratings and imagery accuracy. Journal of Mental Imagery, 12 163-172. Yates, F. A. (1966). The art of memory Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

PAGE 121

121 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Kobnithikulwong, S. received her Bachelor of Ar chitecture (major in interior architecture) with honors from Chulalongkorn University, Thailand, in 2003. After that, she was an instructor in the Department of Interior Architecture at Th ammasat University for 2 years. She currently is a graduate student in the Inte rior Design Department, Univers ity of Florida. Her research interests are creativity in interior design and the design of learning and educational environments. At the University of Florida, she has been accepted into th e Ph.D. program in the College of Design, Construction and Planning and been a teaching assistant for interior design graphic communications. After rece iving her doctoral degree, she pl ans to return to her country and work as a professor at Thammasat University.