跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(44.200.169.3) 您好!臺灣時間:2022/12/04 20:46
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:蘇秀慧
研究生(外文):Hsiu-Hui Su
論文名稱:中文遠距聯想作業之構成要素難度分析暨其與擴散性及頓悟性思考之關聯
論文名稱(外文):The Analysis of Properties of the Chinese Remote Association Test and its Correlation with the Divergent Thinking Test and the Insight Thinking Test
指導教授:陳學志陳學志引用關係
指導教授(外文):Hsueh-Chih Chen
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立臺灣師範大學
系所名稱:教育心理與輔導學系在職進修碩士班
學門:社會及行為科學學門
學類:心理學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2006
畢業學年度:94
語文別:中文
論文頁數:128
中文關鍵詞:創造力遠距聯想擴散性思考頓悟性思考順向聯結逆向聯結
外文關鍵詞:creativityremote associationdivergent thinkinginsight thinkingforward associationbackward association
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:6
  • 點閱點閱:526
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:3
本研究目的在探討中文遠距聯想作業之構成要素對題目答對率的影響,及其與擴散性、頓悟性思考之關聯。故以新編中文遠距聯想量表題庫為選題範圍,以「逆向聯結線索字個數」、「線索字聯想方向轉換次數」、「線索字可連結字數和」、「破音字出現之位置」四個構成要素選題,編製成四份不同的中文遠距聯想作業,選取臺北市三所國中七、八、九年級的學生251人進行施測,以單因子受試者內變異數分析,了解構成要素對題目答對率的影響,再與擴散性思考測驗及頓悟性思考測驗之得分進行積差相關分析。
實驗一結果發現中文遠距聯想作業中,「逆向聯結線索字之個數」對題目答對率的影響有顯著差異,0個逆向聯結線索字的題目答對率顯著高於1個、2個、3個逆向聯結線索字的題目答對率,2個逆向聯結線索字的題目答對率顯著高於3個的題目答對率。0個、1個、2個、3個逆向聯結線索字的題目答對率與新編創造思考測驗之七個指標分數並無顯著相關存在。而0個逆向聯結線索字的題目答對率與頓悟性問題測驗得分有顯著的相關存在。
實驗二結果發現中文遠距聯想作業中,「線索字聯想方向轉換之次數」對題目答對率的影響有顯著差異,線索字聯想方向轉換0次的題目答對率顯著高於1次、2次的題目答對率,線索字聯想方向轉換2次的題目答對率卻顯著高於1次的題目答對率。線索字聯想方向轉換次數為0次且皆為逆向聯結線索字、線索字聯想方向轉換1次、線索字聯想方向轉換2次的題目答對率與新編創造思考測驗之語文變通力有顯著相關存在。另外,聯想方向轉換次數為1次的題目答對率與新編創造思考測驗之圖形精進力達顯著相關。線索字聯想方向轉換1次及2次的題目答對率與頓悟性問題測驗得分有顯著的相關存在。
實驗三結果發現三個線索字皆為順向聯結之中文遠距聯想作業中,「線索字可連結字數和」對題目答對率的影響有顯著差異,低可連結字數和的題目答對率顯著高於中、高可連結字數和的題目。中線索字可連結字數和的題目答對率與新編創造思考測驗之語文流暢力及語文變通力有顯著正相關存在;低線索字可連結字數和的題目答對率與新編圖形創造思考測驗之精進力達顯著相關。而中線索字可連結字數和的題目答對率與頓悟性問題測驗得分有顯著相關存在。
實驗四結果發現中文遠距聯想作業中,「破音字出現之位置」對題目答對率的影響有顯著差異,皆無破音字及線索字出現破音字的題目答對率皆顯著高於目標字出現破音字的題目答對率。目標字出現破音字的題目答對率與新編創造思考測驗之圖形變通力有顯著相關存在,且在語文變通力方面臨界顯著。目標字出現破音字的題目答對率與頓悟性問題測驗得分有顯著相關存在。
綜合以上四個實驗得知,「逆向聯結線索字個數」、「線索字聯想方向轉換次數」、「線索字可連結字數和」、「破音字出現之位置」四個構成要素對中文遠距聯想作業之題目答對率皆有顯著的影響,而且由其相關研究可以得知遠距聯想的歷程中包含了擴散性思考因子,變通力尤其顯著,關聯最大。且中文遠距聯想作業確實與頓悟性思考測驗有相似的特質,表示遠距聯想的認知運作機制與頓悟性思考的歷程相同。本研究結果未來可作為編製中文遠距聯想量表的參考,且對於創造力認知歷程有進一步的了解。
The purposes of the thesis are to study how the properties in the Chinese Remote Association Test affect participants’ passing rate and its correlation with the Divergent Thinking Test, and the Insight Thinking Test. The Chinese remote association items have 4 properties, “the numbers of backward association cue words”, “the time of direction-switch the participants used to associate cue words”, “the sum the cue words that can be connected” and “the place the homonyms appear”, respectively. Using this four properties design 4 experiments. The participants were 7th, 8th and 9the grade students were drawn from four different junior high schools in Taipei. Their passing rates on the Chinese remote association task were analyzed first by one-way ANOVA and then used the Pearson correlation testing the correlation among the Chinese remote association task, Divergent Thinking Test and the Insight Thinking Test.
In experiment 1, the result demonstrated that in the Chinese Remote Association task, the number of backward association cue words significantly influenced participants’ passing rate. The passing rate on items with 0 backward association cue word is higher than those with 1, 2, or 3 backward association cue words, and the passing rate on items with 2 backward association cue words is higher than those with 3. No Correlation was founded between the passing rates on items with 0, 1, 2, or 3 backward association cue words and the seven indices scores on Divergent Thinking Test. However, the passing rate on items with no backward association cue word is significantly correlated with scores on Insight Thinking Test.
In experiment 2, it is showed that the times of direction-switch the students used to associate cue words affects participants’ passing rate significantly. The passing rate on items with cue words which need no switch is higher than those that need 1 or 2 switches, and the passing rate on items with cue words that need 2 switches is higher than those that need 1. There are significant correlations between the verbal flexibility on the Divergent thinking Test and the passing rate on items with backward association cue words that need no switch, the passing rate on items with cue words that need 1 switch, and the passing rate on items with cue words that need 2 switches. Moreover, one significant correlation was found between the passing rate on items with cue words that need 1 switch and the figure elaboration on the Divergent Thinking Test. Another significant correlation was found between the passing rate on items with cue words that need 1 and 2 switches and the scores on the Insight Thinking Test.
In experiment 3, we found that when the three cue words are all forward association ones, the number of cue words that can be connected affects participants’ passing rate a lot. The passing rate on items with smaller number of cue words that can be connected is significantly higher than those with middle and larger number of cue words that can be connected. One positive correlation was found between verbal fluency and flexibility on the Divergent Thinking Test and the passing rate on items with middle number of cue words that can be connected. Another significant correlation was found between figure elaboration on the Divergent Thinking Test and the passing rate on items with smaller number of cue words that can be connected. Still another great correlation was found between the passing rate on items with middle number of cue words that can be connected and the scores on the Insight Thinking Test.
In experiment 4, there is a great difference between participants’ passing rates and the “the place the homonyms appear.” Participants performed better when there is no homonym or the cue words have homonyms. A great correlation was found between the passing rate on items with the target word that has homonyms and the figure flexibility on the Divergent Thinking Test, while the correlation between the pass rate on items with the target word that has homonyms and the verbal flexibility is approximately significant. Another significant correlation was found between the pass rate on items with the target word that has homonyms and the Insight Thinking Test.
The experiments above shows that “the numbers of backward association cue words”, “the time of direction-switch the participants used to associate cue words”, “the sum the cue words that can be connected” and “the place the homonyms appear” affect participants’ passing rate. According to related studies, the processes in the remote association have “divergent thinking”. And the most significant one among the seven indices of the Divergent Thinking Test is flexibility. There is something in common between “Chinese Remote Association Test” and “Insight Thinking Test.” It means that the processes involved in solving the “Chinese Remote Association Test” and the “Insight Thinking Test” is the same. The results of this study can be used to construct a “Chinese Remote Association Test” and to help people understand the cognitive process of creativity.
摘 要 I
目 錄 IV
附錄目次 VI
附表目次 VII
附圖目次 IX

第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究動機 1
第二節 研究目的 4
第三節 名詞釋義 5

第二章 文獻探討 9
第一節 創造力之內涵 9
第二節 創造力理論 13
第三節 以認知歷程為主的創造力測量工具之回顧 39
第四節 研究假設 54

第三章 研究方法與結果 58
第一節 實驗一 「逆向聯結線索字之個數」對題目答對率的影響暨其與擴散性思考測驗及頓悟性思考測驗之得分的關係 58
第二節 實驗二 「線索字聯想方向轉換次數」對題目答對率的影響暨其與擴散性思考測驗及頓悟性思考測驗之得分的關係 70
第三節 實驗三 三個線索字皆為順向聯結為前提,「線索字可連結字數和」對題目答對率的影響暨其與擴散性思考測驗及頓悟性思考測驗之得分的關係 78
第四節 實驗四 「破音字出現之位置」對題目答對率的影響暨其與擴散性思考測驗及頓悟性思考測驗之得分的關係 86

第四章 綜合討論 93
第一節 研究結果討論 93
第二節 對創造力教育之建議 102
第三節 研究限制 102
第四節 未來研究方向 104

參考文獻 106

附錄1 中文遠距聯想作業A 118
附錄2 中文遠距聯想作業B 120
附錄3 中文遠距聯想作業C 122
附錄4 中文遠距聯想作業D 124
附錄5 同儕提名問卷 126
附錄6 新編創造思考測驗使用同意書 127
附錄7 頓悟性問題測驗使用同意書 128
毛連塭、郭有遹、陳龍安、林幸台 (2000)。創造力研究。台北:心理。
石瑞儀 (1985)。文字閱讀中 [字形-字音]關係對字彙觸接歷程的影響。台灣大學心理學研究所碩士論文。
任純慧、陳學志、練竑初 (2001)。中文遠距聯想量表的編製:新策略的嘗試。國科會大專生研究計畫。
任純慧、陳學志、練竑初、卓淑玲 (2004)。創造力測量的輔助工具:中文遠距聯想量表的編製。應用心理研究,21,195-218。
吳靜吉 (1976)。分歧式和聯鎖式的聯想訓練對創造思考的影響。國立政治大學學報,33,45-71。
吳靜吉 (2002)。創新教育何為先華人學生創造力的發掘與培育,應用心理研究,15,17~42。
吳靜吉、陳嘉成、林偉文 (1999)。創造力量表簡介,國科會研究結案報告。
吳靜吉、陳甫彥、郭俊賢、林偉、劉士豪、陳玉樺 (1998)。新編創造思考測驗研究。教育部輔導工作六年計畫研究報告。
李秀瓊 (1999)。高低創造力者在詞彙連結型態上有否差異?──檢驗Mednick的「連結層級」假說。台灣大學心理學研究所碩士論文。
李錫津 (1987)。創造思考教學對高職生創造力發展之影響。國立台灣師範大學教育與心理輔導研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
何偉雲、葉錦燈 (2003)。RAT-like測驗中的發散性思考分析,科學教育學刊,11(2),195-210。
邱發忠 (2005)。創造力認知運作機制之探究。國立台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導學系博士論文。
邱皓政(2005)。創造力的測量與共識衡鑑。教育資料集刊--創造力教育,30,267-298。
林幸台 (1982)。衡鑑創造力的新指標。國教輔導,21,6-9。
洪蘭譯,Sternberg, R.J & Lubart, T.I. 著 (1999)。不同凡想。台北:遠流。
陳龍安 (1984)。創造性思考教學對國小資優班與普通班創造思考力之影響。國立台灣師範大學心理與輔導研究所碩士論文 (未出版)。
陳龍安 (2004)。創造思考教學的理論與實際。台北:心理。
陳龍安 (2005)。創造思考的策略與技法。教育資料集刊--創造力教育,30,201-266。
陳龍安、朱湘吉 (1999)。創造與生活。台北:五南。
陳怡潔、陳學志、劉浩敏 (2002)。中文遠距聯想量表之修訂︰如何避免知識與策略因素之介入。國科會大專生研究計畫。
陳昭儀 (1992)。創造力的定義及研究。資優教育季刊,44,12-17。
陳瑋琦 (2003)。幽默理解與感知量表之編製暨影響幽默理解與感知因素的探討。國立輔仁大學心理學系博士論文。
黃博聖 (2006)。詞彙聯想策略測驗的發展。國立台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導學系碩士論文。
黃博聖、陳學志 (2003)。新版中文遠距聯想測驗(CRAT)之效度研究與作答認知歷程之分析。國科會大專生研究計畫。
許禕芳、陳學志 (2005)。牛頓被蘋果砸到之前─以遠距聯想測驗之答題直覺探討創造思考醞釀階段的認知歷程。國科會大專生研究計畫。
郭有遹 (2001),創造心理學。台北:正中。
莊淇銘 (2003)。創意總比別人多。台北:圓神。
教育部 (1985)。國民中學課程標準。
賈馥茜 (1976)。英才教育。台北:開明。
張玉成 (1983)。思考技巧與教學。台北:東華。
張洋 (2000)。創意靈感跳出來。台中:晨星。
張春興 (2002)。張氏心理學辭典。台北:東華。
劉子鍵 (2000)。認知測量在APM和新編圖形推理能力測驗效度化上的驗證研究。國立台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導學系博士論文。
劉世南、郭誌光 (2001)。創造力的概念與定義。資優教育季刊,81,1-7。
劉佩雲 (1990)。性別、創造力、自我檢校與幽默之間的關係。國立政治大學教育研究所碩士論文。
鄭昭明 (1993)。認知心理學:理論與實踐。台北:桂冠。


Amabile, T. M. (1979). Effects of external evaluation on artistic creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 221-233.
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. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior., 10, 123-167.
Andrews, F. M. (1965). Factors affecting the manifestation of creative ability by scientists. Journal of Personality, 33(1),140-152.
Ansburg, P. I. (2000). Individual Differences In Problem Solving Via Insigh. Current Psychology: Developmental, Learning, Personality, Social, 19(2),143-146.
Ansburg, P. I. (2003). Creative and analytic thinkers differ in their use of attentional resources.Personality and Individual Differences, 34(7), 1141-1152.
Basadur, M. S., & Finkbeiner, C. T. (1985) . Measuring preference for ideation in creative problem-solving training. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 21(1),37-49.
Bachelor, P. A., & Michael, W. B. (1997). The structure of intellectmodel revisited. In M. A. Runco (Ed.), Creativity research handbook (Vol. 1, pp. 155–182). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
Beeman, M. J., & Bowden, E. M. (2000). The right hemisphere maintains solution-related activation for yet-to-be-solved problems. Memory and Cognition, 28, 1231-1241.
Ben-Zur, H. (1989). Automatic and directed search processes in solbing simple semantic-memory problems. Memory and cognition, 17, 617-626.
Boden, M. (1992). The creative mind: Myths and mechanisms. New York: Basic.
Boden, M. (ED.) (1994). Dimensions of creativity. Cambridge, Ma: MIT Press.
Bowden, E. M., & Beeman, M. J. (1998). Getting the right idea: Semantic activation in the right hemisphere may help solve insight problems. Psychological Science, 9, 435-440.
Bowden, E. M., & Beeman, M. J. (2003a). Normative data for 144 compound remote associate problems. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 35(4), 634-639.
Bowden, E. M. & Beeman, M. J. (2003b). Aha!Insight experience correlates with solution activation in the right hemisphere. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 10, 730-737.
Bowers, K. S., Regehr, G., Balthezard, C. G., & Parker, K. (1990). Intuition in the context of discovery. Cognitive Psychology, 22, 72-110.
Bruner, J. (1962). The conditions of creativity. In On Knowing: Essays for the Left Hand (Ed.), Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.
Callahan, C. M. (1978) .Developing creativity ins the gifted and talented . VA: The Council for Exceptional Children.
Coney, J. & Serna, P. (1995). Creative thinking from an information processing perspective: a new approach to Mednick’s theory of associative hierarchies. Journal of Creative Behavior, 29(2), 109-132.
Couturier L. C.,Mansfield R. S. & Gallargher J. M. (1981).Relationships between humor, formal operational, ability, and creativity in eighth graders. The Journal of Genitic Psycholog, 139, 221-226.
Cropley, A. J. (1996). Recognizing creative potential: An evaluation of the usefulness of creativity tests. High Ability Studies, 7(2), 203-219.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). Society, culture, and person: A systems view of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychological perspectives (pp. 325-339). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed). Handbook of Creativity (pp. 313-335). Cambridge University Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Getzels, J. W. (1971). Discovery-oriented behavior and the originality of creative products: A study with artists. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 19, 47-52.
Dacey, J. S. (1989). Fundamentals of creative thinking. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Dailey, A., Martindale, C. & Borkum, J. (1997). Creativity, synestthesia, and physiognomic perception. Creativity Research Journal, 10(1), 1-8.
Davis,G.A.(1986).Creativity is forever. Dubuque,IW. Kendall/Hunt.
Davis, G. A. (1989). Testing for creative potential. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 14, 257-274.
Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin.
Dominowski, R. L., & Dallob, P. (1995). Insight and problem solving. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of insight (pp.33-62). The MIT Press.
Duncker, K. (1945). On problem solving. Psychological Monographs, 68(5), whole no. 270.
Feldman, D. H., Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Gardner, H.(1994). A framework for the study of creativity. In D. H. Feldman; M. Csikszentmihalyi & H.
Fink, R. A., Ward, T. B., & Smith, S. M.(1992). Creative Cognition: theory, research, and applications. The MIT Press.
Freud, S. (1959). Creative writers and day-dreaming. In J. Strachey (Ed.), Standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (pp. 143-153). London: Hogarth Press.
Freud, S. (1908/1959).The relation of the poet to day-dreaming. In Collected papers , 6, (pp. 173-183). London: Hogarth .
Frensch, P. A. $ Sternberg,. R. J. (1989) . Expertise and intelligent thinking: When is it worse to know better? In R. J. Sternberg (ED.), Advances in the psychology of human intelligence , 5 , 157-158. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gardner (EDs.), Changing the World: A framework for the study of creativity(1-45). London: Praeger.
Gedo, J. E. (1997). Psychoanalytic theories of creativity. In M. A. Runco (Ed.), The creativity, research handbook (Vol. 1, pp. 29-39). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Ghiselin, B. (ED.) (1985). The creative process: A symposium. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologise, 5, 444-454.
Guilford, J. P. (1968). Creativity, Intelligence, and their educational implications. San Diego, CA: Knapp
Guilford, J. P. (1956). The structure of intellect. Psychological Bulletin, 53, 267-293.
Guilford, J. P. (1959). Personality. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959..
Hennessey, B. A.(2003). The Social Psychology of Creativity. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research;47(3), 253-271.
Hennessey, B. A. & Amabile, T. M. (1988). Story-Telling: A Method for Assessing Children's Creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 22, 235-246.
Hocevar, D.(1981). Measurement of creativity: Review and critique. Journal of Personalit y Assessment.
Hocevar, D. & Bachelor, P. (1989).A taxonomy and critique of measurements used in the study of creativity. In J. A. Glover, R. R. Ronning, & C. R. Reynolds (EDs.), Handbook of creativity, 53-75. New York: Plenum.
Houtz, J. C., & Krug, D. (1995) . Assessment of Creativity: Resolving a mid-life crisis. Educational of Psychology Review, 7(3), 269-300.
Isen, M. A., Daubman, K. A. & Nowicki, G. P. (1987). Positive affect facilitates creative problem solving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(6),1121-1131.
Kaufmann, G.(2003).What to Measure? A new look at the concept of creativity. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research;47(3), 235-251.
Kris. E. (1952). Psychoanalytic exploration in art. New York: International Universities Press.
Lubart, T. I. (1994). Creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Thinking and Problem Solving (pp. 289-332). Academic Press.
Wallas, G. (1926). The art of thought. New York :Harcourt, Brace.
Mackler, P. S. & Shontz, F. C. (1965). Creativity: Theoretical and methodological considerations. The psychological Record, 5, 217-238.
MacKinnon, D. W. (1978). In search of human effectiveness: Identifying and developing creativity. Buffalo, NY: Creative Education Foundation.
Mayer, R. E. (1992). Thinking, problem solving, cognition.(2nd ed). New, York: Freeman.
Mayer, R. E. (1995). The search for insight: grappling with Gestalt psychology’s unanswered questions. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of insight (pp.1-32). The MIT Press.
McFarlin, D. B. & Blascovich J.(1984). On the Remote Associates Test (RAT) as an Alternative to Illusory Performance Feedback: A Methodological Note. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 5(3), 223-229.
Mcfglynn, R. P., Gibbs, M. E. & Roberts, S. J. (1982). Effects of cooperative versus competitive set and coaction on creative responding. The Journal of Social Psychology, 118, 281-282.
Mednick, S. A. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 44, 220-232.
Mednick, S. A. (1968). The Remote Associates Test. Journal of Creative Behavior , 2(3), 213-214.
Mendelsohn, G. A. (1987). Associative and attentional processes in creative performance. Journal of Personality; 44, 341-369.
Metcalfe, J. (1986). Feelings of knowing in memory and problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition.
Metcalfe, J., & Wiebe, D.(1987). Intuition in insight and non-insight problem solving. Memory & Cognition, 15, 238-246.
Mikulincer M. & Sheffi E. (2000). Adult attachment style and cognitive reactions to positive affect: A test of mental categorization and reative problem solving. Motivation and Emotion, 24(3), 149-174.
Mumford, M. D. ( 2003). Where Have We Been, Where Are We Going? Taking Stock in Creativity Research. Creativity Research Journal,15 Issue 2/3, 107.
Murray J. & Russ, S. (1981). Adaptive regression and types of cognitive flexibility. Journal of Personality Assessment, 45(1), 59-65.
Ochse, R. (1990). Before the gates of excellence. New York: Cambridge University Press
Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1966) . Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 607-634.
Ohlsson, S. (1984). Restructuring revisited: Ⅰ. A summary and critique of the gestalt theory of problem solving. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 25, 67-78.
Plukcer, J. A., & Renzulli, J. S. (1999). Psychometric approaches to the study of human creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp.35-61). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. Phi Delta Kappa, 42, 305-310.
Runco, M. A. (2004). Creativity. American review of Psychology, 55, 657-687.
Runco, M. A. & Albert, R. S. (1985). The reliability and validity of ideational originality in the divergent thinking of academically gifted and nongifted children. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 45, 483-501.
Runco, M. A. (1986). Divergent thinking and creative performance in gifted and nongifted children. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 46, 375-384.
Schlicht, W. J. Jr., Anderson, D. L., Helin W. C., Hippe D. L., Listiak R. L., Moser R. J. & Walker J. L. (1968).Creativity and intelligence: Further findings..Journal of Clinical Psychology, 24(4), 458.
Schooler, J. W., Ohlsson, S. & Brooks, K. (1993). Thoughts beyond words: When language overshadows insight. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122, 166-183.
Segal, E. (2004). Incubation in insight problem solving. Creativity Research Journal, 16,141-148.
Sitton, S. C. & Pierce, E. R. (2004). Synesthesia, Creativity and Puns. Psychological Reports, 95(2), 577-580.
Smith, S. M., Ward, T. B., & Fink, R. A.(Eds.).(1995).The creative cognition approach. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.). (1988). The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychological perspectives. Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1992).Buy low and sell high: An investment approach to creativity.; Current Directions in Psychological Science, Vol 1(1),1-5.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1995). Defying the crowd: Cultivation creativity in a culture of conformity. New York: Free Press.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1996).Investing in Creativity. American Psychologist, 51(7), 677-688.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1999). The concept of Creativity: Prospects and Paradigms. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity. Camridge Press.
Thurstone, L. L. Creative talent. Proceedings of the 1950 Invitational Conference on Testing Problems, Educational Testing , Service, 1951, 55-69. (Reprinted in A. Anastasi (Ed.), Testing problems in perspective. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1966.
Walton, S. L. (2003). Examining the Broaden and Build Model of Positive Emotions. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 63(11-B),. 5542.
Ward, W. C. (1969). Rate and uniqueness in children’s creative responding. Child Development, 40, 869-878.
Wehner, L., Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Magyari-Beck, I.(1991). Current approaches used in studying creativity: An exploratory investigation. Creativity Research Journal, 4(3), 261-271.
White, H. A., & Shah, P. (2006). Uninhibited imaginations: Creativity in adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. Personality and Individual Differences, 40(6), 1121-1131.
Vartanian, O. A. (2002). Cognitive disinhibition and creativity. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 63(6-B), 3051.
Vernon, P. E. (ED.) (1970). Creativity: Selected readings. Baltimore, MD: Penguin Books.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
1. 丁樹範,〈九一一事件後美台軍事關係的發展〉。《國際事務季刊》,2期,2002年春,頁42-56。
2. 王崑義,〈美國的反恐怖主義與國際安全∼兼論九一一事件以後臺海兩岸的處境〉。《遠景季刊》,3卷2期,民91年4月,頁137-184。
3. 劉世南、郭誌光 (2001)。創造力的概念與定義。資優教育季刊,81,1-7。
4. 陳龍安 (2005)。創造思考的策略與技法。教育資料集刊--創造力教育,30,201-266。
5. 陳昭儀 (1992)。創造力的定義及研究。資優教育季刊,44,12-17。
6. 吳靜吉 (1976)。分歧式和聯鎖式的聯想訓練對創造思考的影響。國立政治大學學報,33,45-71。
7. 邱皓政(2005)。創造力的測量與共識衡鑑。教育資料集刊--創造力教育,30,267-298。
8. 任純慧、陳學志、練竑初、卓淑玲 (2004)。創造力測量的輔助工具:中文遠距聯想量表的編製。應用心理研究,21,195-218。
9. 何偉雲、葉錦燈 (2003)。RAT-like測驗中的發散性思考分析,科學教育學刊,11(2),195-210。
10. 吳靜吉 (2002)。創新教育何為先華人學生創造力的發掘與培育,應用心理研究,15,17~42。
11. 李文志,〈全球化對亞太安全理念的衝擊與重建:理論的初探〉。《政治科學論叢》,第22期,民國93年12月,頁31-64。
12. 李文志,〈杭亭頓的戰略思想與美國全球戰略關係〉。《問題與研究》,41卷4期,民國91年7、8月,頁1-20。
13. 林正義,〈亞太安全保障的新體系〉。《問題與研究》,35卷12期,民國85年12月,頁1-18。
14. 徐遵慈,〈重新思考我國參與APEC的策略與功能─從APEC納入安全議題談起〉。《亞太經濟合作評論》,第八期(2001年12月),頁8~9。
15. 許志嘉,〈九一一事件後美國對中共政策的調整〉。《問題與研究》,42卷3期,民國92年5、6月,頁79-102。