Next Article in Journal
The Bidirectional Relationship between Meta-Creativity and Academic Performance in University Students
Previous Article in Journal
Learning Styles Impact Students’ Perceptions on Active Learning Methodologies: A Case Study on the Use of Live Coding and Short Programming Exercises
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Effects of Attitudes towards Mathematics and STEM Education on High-Ability Students and a Community Sample
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Education Sciences
Volume 14
Issue 3
10.3390/educsci14030251
education-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Creativity and Decision Making in Giftedness

by
María de los Dolores Valadez Sierra
1,*,
Celia Josefina Rodríguez Cervantes
1,
Emilio Verche
2 and
Beatriz Verónica Panduro Espinoza
3
1
Institute of Psychology and Special Education, Department of Applied Psychology, University Center of Health Sciences, University of Guadalajara, Guadalajara 44340, Mexico
2
Department of Psychobiology Methodology in Behavioural Sciences, Faculty of Education, Complutense University of Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain
3
Department of Human Reproduction Clinics Child Growth and Development, University Center of Health Sciences, University of Guadalajara, Guadalajara 44340, Mexico
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Educ. Sci. 2024, 14(3), 251; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14030251
Submission received: 28 October 2023 / Revised: 20 February 2024 / Accepted: 21 February 2024 / Published: 28 February 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Talent and Education: Approaches, Assessments and Intervention)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Creativity is the ability to re-experience mental representations and is the basis of intuitive thinking when constructing images prior to the elaboration of an action plan. Creativity is thought to be related to orbitofrontal functions that govern decision making, such as inhibitory control, risk–benefit evaluation and acceptance of limits and rules, given that these processes prepare one against possible scenarios. Objective: In this study, the relationship between creativity and decision making is investigated to understand the needs of gifted students. Method: A cross-sectional descriptive study was carried out with gifted students (IQ mean = 133) aged 8–10 years old (n = 25). Instruments: Creative Imagination Test (PIC) and subtests of the Neuropsychological Battery of Executive Functions and Frontal Lobes (BANFE-2) were employed. Analysis: A Spearman correlation analysis was conducted between the normalized BANFE-2 scores and the percentiles of PIC. Results: Moderate correlations were found between creative/narrative flexibility and decision making/risk percentage (r = 0.432, p ≤ 0.05) and decision making/response-effectiveness (r = 0.426, p ≤ 0.05), as well as between graphic creativity/shadow and color with decision making/response-effectiveness (r = 0.452, p ≤ 0.05) and inhibition (r = 0.673, p ≤ 0.01); moderate negative correlations were found between inhibition and graphic creativity/title (r = −0.570, p ≤ 0.05) and general graphic creativity (r = −0.489, p ≤ 0.05). Conclusions: Creativity in students with intellectual giftedness is favored by a relationship with orbitofrontal functions. Analysis of risk situations and effective decision making increase narrative creation and diminished inhibition allows for greater creative graphic production.

1. Introduction

Creativity is the ability to re-experience mental representations and is the basis of intuitive thinking when constructing images prior to creating and executing an action plan [1].
For creativity to manifest, it is necessary to analyze and interpret the available information on a given topic [2] and feel the need to increase one’s knowledge (that is, be curious), starting with the interpretation of the stimuli received from the environment and a personal motivation to transform problems into results [3].
Creativity includes originality in solving problems, breaking rules when necessary and meeting the expectations of the situation [4]. Given all these statements, creativity should be conceptualized as a process that involves a variety of steps to generate novel and contextually appropriate ideas [5,6], and in this way, it can be conceived as the result of applying basic cognitive processes to existing knowledge structures [7].
Starting with genetics, it has been shown that there is genetic influence on intelligence and that this influence extends to creative scientific achievements [8,9]. This suggests that creative work can be achieved through a variety of cognitive processes and through different cognitive strategies, which pose different demands on information processing depending on the domains of expression. Cognitive abilities, personality, interests and the probability of participating, enjoying and excelling in certain activities or domains are affected by both genetic composition and life experiences [8].
Cognitive flexibility and persistence lead to creative achievements as they allow for free and fluid associative thinking between semantic concepts, enabling systematic, effortful and deep explorations of an issue [8].
Therefore, creativity is the result of a dynamic interaction between various brain regions, networks and systems. The patterns of brain activity seen during creative problem solving depend largely on the problem-solving strategies used [10] and in turn on the objective of the task. For instance, the lateral prefrontal cortex exerts top-down control on intended behavior, and the medial prefrontal cortex is activated to organize brain systems into automated processes [8].
Creative performance can be associated with both increased and decreased activity in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and other working memory regions, depending on the prerequisites of the task [10].
It is known that the inferior prefrontal cortex, related to memory retrieval, executive processes and focused attention, plays a predominant role in divergent reasoning [10,11]. Divergent reasoning is as a central component of creative capacity, being understood as the production of original ideas to solve problems [12] and implying fluidity of thought, ideas, flexibility and elaboration or complexity [13].
Some studies have already found that damage to the ventromedial areas of the frontal lobe is associated with a low reactivity of the central nervous system [14].
The integration of different cognitive components associated with the prefrontal cortex through the activation of synaptic networks that connect prefrontal areas with cortical and subcortical areas in order to process complex information gives rise to the decision-making process. Decision making consists of appropriately selecting response alternatives to complete a task or action plan or for problem resolution; it requires evaluating, initiating, supervising, monitoring and controlling the established plan [15].
Controlling the plan to be executed implies pre-considering and prioritizing actions to carry out what is important. Inhibitory control is the ability to suppress inappropriate responses and allow other responses that could resolve a situation to continue [16,17].
Inhibitory control has been associated with the orbitofrontal cortex, as this region modulates anticipatory stimulation and immediate rewards [15] and is aided by alpha brain wave activity [18].
In decision making, the acceptance of limits and rules helps guide the generation of a variety of possibilities of how to direct intentional behavior [19]. In this way, decision making is closely related to the ability to measure risk in a situation. Risk probability analysis is one of the variables evaluated in decision-making studies, as it is related to the anticipation of behavior [15]. Risk–benefit analysis depends on the initial activation of the ventromedial prefrontal cortex and involves the decision-making process mentioned above to select the best option without variance that will attain the result with the greatest benefits [20,21].
Inhibitory control, risk–benefit analysis and acceptance of limits and rules represent the basic components of the decision-making process since they prepare one for all possible scenarios [15,22].
In the context of students who are intellectually gifted, creativity is an essential characteristic that helps resolve difficulties when preparing projects [23]. Despite extensive research on the cognitive components of creativity, further research on this topic is needed in the context of intelligence, as Stenberg et al. [24] discuss.
Creativity is thought to be related to some orbitofrontal functions that govern decision making [15,22]. Inhibitory control is associated with the activity of the orbitofrontal cortex, which modulates anticipated stimuli and immediate rewards [15], supported by alpha brain wave activity [18].
Creativity has been described as a characteristic of gifted students, and some studies define creativity as divergent thinking [25] that allows ideas and processes to be related creatively in order to find alternatives to solving a problem. Therefore, a question arises about the relationship between creativity and decision making in gifted students, which could help us to better understand the needs of students with intellectual giftedness.
This study takes Gagné’s Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent and Mexican regulations for identification [26,27] as the bases for identifying giftedness in students, in which the conceptualization of this term is proposed as the possession and use of untrained and spontaneously expressed natural abilities (called aptitudes or gifts) in at least one skill domain to a degree that places the child or adult at least in the top 15% of their age peers.
The aim of this research is to analyze the relationship between creativity and decision making in students with intellectual giftedness.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Design and Participants

An ex post facto prospective cross-sectional descriptive study was carried out to analyze the relationship between creativity and decision making in students with intellectual giftedness.
Twenty-five students (eight girls, seventeen boys) with intellectual giftedness (mean IQ = 133) aged between 8 and 10 years old participated in this study. They were students of basic education between grades two and six.
The selection of participants was carried out based on convenience criteria. All participants were students of the CEPAC Educational Center for High Capacity, located in the city of Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico, which is a public school of basic-level educational specialty and innovation that provides educational care to children identified with intellectual giftedness. To be accepted into this school, students must apply in the annual public announcement and meet specific criteria, including residence in Jalisco, being a regular student, having a score of 130 points in the giftedness diagnosis and completing each of the selection stages. The selection stages include cognitive, socio-affective, behavioral and academic evaluations [26].
The intellectual characteristics of participants are described in Table 1. An analysis of the descriptive data was carried out, and the following intelligence variables were found (Table 1): general intelligence quotient of 133; intelligence indexes showed higher scores in verbal comprehension (ICV = 134) and perceptual reasoning (IRP = 131); and lower processing speed scores (IVP = 116).

2.2. Instruments

Intelligence was assessed using the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children—4th edition in Spanish (WISC-IV) [28]. To evaluate creativity and decision making, we used the following instruments: the Creative Imagination Test (PIC) [1] and Neuropsychological Battery of Executive Functions and Frontal Lobes (BANFE-2) subtests [22].
The Creative Imagination Test (PIC) [1] was created based on the classic studies of Guillford and Torrance. This test takes a factorial approach to measuring creativity, with specific scores in fluency, flexibility, originality, elaboration, shadow and color, title and special details and general scores in graphic creativity, narrative creativity and general creativity.
The Neuropsychological Battery of Executive Functions and Frontal Lobes [3] (BANFE-2) can be applied to people between 6 and 80 years old. It has 14 subtests of different executive functions. The following subtests were used to estimate orbitofrontal functioning in this study: Mazes (subtest 3) to assess the acceptance of rules and limits in a visuospatial–visuospatial task; Card Classification (subtest 6), involving the counting of the number of maintenance errors for inhibition; Stroop A (subtest 8), which assesses inhibition of an automatic response and selects a response based on arbitrary criteria; Gambling Card Game (subtest 10) to evaluate the ability to detect and avoid risky selections and to detect and maintain beneficial selections; Stroop B (subtest 15) for inhibition, which is the second part of Stroop A. This battery of tests has high validity and reliability for the evaluation of cognitive processes that depend on the prefrontal cortex (Table 2).

2.3. Procedure

The WISC-IV scale [28] was administered to individual students in a classroom setting without distractions. Prior informed consent was given by the parents in the access stage to the High Abilities Educational Center. The application sessions had a maximum duration of 50 min.
The administration of the PIC [1] test was carried out collectively in a group in a classroom during the access stage to the High Abilities Educational Center.
The BANFE-2 [22] subscales were administered during the school year in a classroom without distractions. The application sessions had a maximum duration of 90 min, with a 5 min rest between tests, depending on the child’s condition.
This project addressed the ethical considerations of the regulation of the official Mexican standard called Norma Official Mexicana NOM 004-SSA3-2012 and the General Health Law on health research, in articles 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17, based on the understanding that it is not a work of experimentation or invasive medical intervention and implies minimal risk for the participants related to the application of psychological tests. In the admission process to CEPAC, informed consent letters authorized by the children’s parents were obtained.

2.4. Procedure

Descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation) were calculated for creativity scores as assessed using the PIC test [1] (fluency, flexibility, originality, elaboration, shadow and color, title, special details and general scores of graphic creativity, narrative creativity and general creativity) and decision-making variables as assessed using BANFE-2 [22] (inhibition, risk analysis and acceptance of limits and rules). A Spearman correlation analysis was performed between normalized BANFE-2 scores and PIC percentiles as a hypothesis test. The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) v.24 was used for data analysis.

3. Results

3.1. Descriptive Analysis

Regarding creativity, the descriptive statistics are shown in Table 3. A mean percentile of general creativity of 67 was found, with higher percentiles observed in special details (79th percentile) and narrative originality (73rd percentile) and lower percentiles in preparation (47th percentile) and title (49th percentile).
The decision-making evaluation yielded scores between 7 and 13 standardized points; all subscales of the neuropsychological battery obtained scores at a normal (average) level (Table 4).

3.2. Correlational Analysis

3.2.1. Spearman’s Correlational Analysis between Verbal Creativity and Decision-Making Function

Spearman’s correlational analysis showed moderate correlations between creative/narrative flexibility and decision making/risk–benefit analysis percentage (r = 0.432, p = 0.040) and the effectiveness of decision-making/risk–benefit analysis in a gambling cards game (r = 0.426, p ≤ 0.043).
On the other hand, there were not significant correlations between the verbal creativity variables (fluency, flexibility and narrative originality) and the acceptance of limits and rules, the inhibition of Stroop A mistakes, the inhibition of Stroop A time, the inhibition of Stroop A effectiveness, the inhibition of Stroop B mistakes, the inhibition of Stroop B time, the inhibition of Stroop B effectiveness or the inhibition of maintenance mistakes in the card-sorting task (Table 5 and Table 6).

3.2.2. Spearman’s Correlational Analysis between Graphic Creativity and Decision-Making Function

In Spearman’s correlational analysis between graphic creativity and decision-making functions, moderate correlations were found, specifically between graphic creativity/shadow and color and the effectiveness of the risk–benefit analysis of decision making (r = 0.452, p = 0.030); moderate negative correlations were found between graphic creativity/shadow and color and inhibition of Stroop B effectiveness (r = −0.0673, p = 0.003) and between inhibition of Stroop B effectiveness and graphic creativity/title (r = −0.570, p = 0.017). There were no significant correlations between graphic originality, elaboration and special details and any of the decision-making functions (Table 7 and Table 8).

3.2.3. Spearman’s Correlational Analysis between General Creativity and Decision-Making Function

Considering the general score, there was only a negative correlation between the general score of graphic creativity and the inhibition of Stroop B effectiveness (r = −0.489, p = 0.047). The rest of the general scores did not show significant correlations with the decision-making functions (Table 9 and Table 10).

4. Discussion

The aim of this study was to analyze the relationship between creativity and decision making in gifted students.
In this study, we present results on three relationships: verbal creativity and decision-making functions, graphic creativity and decision-making functions and general creativity and decision-making functions.
Moderate correlations were found between decision-making functions and both verbal and graphic creativity. Specifically, the results show moderate correlations between creative narrative flexibility with risk–benefit analysis in decision making, between creative narrative flexibility and the effectiveness of risk–benefit analysis in decision making and between shadow and color (as a measure of graphic creativity) and the effectiveness of the risk–benefit analysis in decision making in a gambling cards game. Few studies have focused on this topic, especially not on an intellectually gifted population.
After evaluating 113 university students using the Iowa Gambling task, Harada [29] found that people with characteristic results of divergent thinking, also understood as creative thinking, tend to adopt more risky behaviors in the face of losses; he found a relationship between risk attitudes and creativity. In a subsequent study, Harada [30] tested the effects of positive mood and risk taking on creativity using a rigorous computational approach and found that risk-taking behavior in the face of losses exhibited positive effects on divergent thinking. This finding suggests that risk taking contributed to driving exploratory behavior, which in turn facilitated divergent thinking as a determinant of creativity.
This study employs the principles of the Iowa Gambling task, included in the BANFE-2 [22] battery, an instrument validated in the ages of our evaluated population, whose results reinforce the relationship between creativity and risk attitudes. This relationship is presented as the percentage that is deduced from the frequency of choosing stimuli that represent a higher score with a greater probability of loss.
On the other hand, looking at the results of the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test based on the BANFE-2 [22] sorting cards, we found normal levels for all intellectually gifted participants, that is, average levels of performance. These results differ from the results of Viana-Saenz [31] who evaluated 30 children between 9 and 11 years old with the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test, using a free BCST version that is similar to the BANFE-2 [22] sorting cards. In that study, statistical differences were found between gifted and talented children in terms of maintenance errors, which means that children with intellectual giftedness made fewer maintenance errors than talented children.
Sastré-Ribe [32] examined 41 participants who were 13 years old. This study showed differences between the cognitive profiles of talented children and children with intellectual giftedness as evaluated using the Torrance Differential Aptitude and Creative Thinking Test. In this study, intellectually gifted participants’ decision-making results were similar to average levels of executive development; that is, higher scores were not found in the decision-making tests among intellectually gifted students.
Concerning graphic creativity and decision-making functions, we found a moderate negative correlation with inhibition effectiveness.
Benedek et al. [33] examined the role of cognitive inhibition and intelligence in creativity and found a positive correlation between cognitive inhibition, assessed by the random motor generation task, with creativity. In this study, it was found that the cognitive control used to inhibit irrelevant responses seems to facilitate the fluid generation of new ideas on a topic, suppressing the proactive interference of previous responses. This result is compatible with the results of the present study, which found a correlation between both variables. However, in the current study a negative correlation was found that could explain the response to the underlying process in the Stroop-type tasks. In this way, our study coincides with that carried out by Sánchez-Macias et al. [34], who found a negative correlation between creativity and verbal inhibition in their evaluation of high school students between 14 and 17 years old.
On the other hand, in this research, a correlation was found between an aspect of inhibition in the Stroop task (i.e., inhibition of effectiveness in the Stroop B BANFE-2 [22] task) and some variables of graphic creativity but not of narrative creativity. Cipolotti et al. [16] advocate for exhaustive cognitive evaluation, including executive functions, among which is decision making; they also state that fluid intelligence is part of a set of specific functions in cognitive estimation.
When considering the general scores, there was only a negative correlation between the general scores of graphic creativity and inhibition of effectiveness. Cipolotti et al. [16] evaluated 30 adult patients with frontal lesions and 60 healthy adults and reported that the Stroop test is an executive task that represents a small component of fluid intelligence. Research is still needed regarding cognitive functioning, intelligence and creativity.
Benedek et al. [35] evaluated 230 people with an average age of 23 years to examine the relative contributions of different executive functions to individual differences in fluid intelligence and creativity and to understand the structural relationship between intelligence and creativity. They found no correlation between fluid intelligence and creativity and did not find inhibition to be a predictor of fluid intelligence; however, they discovered that inhibition could predict creativity. This study is compatible with the results of the present study demonstrating the correlation between inhibition effectiveness and graphic creativity.
Some limitations of this study stem from its correlational nature, which demonstrates associations between variables without establishing causal relationships. Consequently, it is impossible to determine from this study alone which variable influences the other. Moreover, there may be additional unobserved variables (third variables) that could be intervening factors. These variables may encompass sociodemographic, socioemotional, biological and educational factors, among others.
The limitations of this study suggest future studies should be conducted with a larger sample size, a search for a biological marker (EEG, fMRI) to clarify the abovementioned processes, a case–control study and an evaluation of the adolescent population.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, it was found that creativity in students with intellectual giftedness is favored by the relationship with orbitofrontal functions. In addition, it was found that analysis of risk situations and effective decision making increase narrative creation, whereas decreased inhibition allows creative graphic production.
Although this is an evaluation study, the results show the association between decision-making variables and creativity. This is a field that requires further research, including the adoption of other techniques such as neuroimaging. For now, our study shows that different aspects of creativity correlate with different aspects of orbitofrontal functions, including inhibitory behavior, analysis of risk situations and decision making.
It is important to make these results and associations known and to observe and try to understand, within their limitations, the creativity of children with high intellectual capacity and their behavior in school contexts. In addition, along with the accompaniment of an adult, such as the teacher, as a guide, and in an environment of respect and understanding, the need for graphic and/or narrative expression to aid in the inhibited expression of their behavior can be better understood.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.d.l.D.V.S. and C.J.R.C.; methodology, E.V.; software, C.J.R.C.; validation, B.V.P.E., M.d.l.D.V.S. and C.J.R.C.; formal analysis, E.V.; investigation, C.J.R.C.; resources, M.d.l.D.V.S., C.J.R.C. and E.V.; data curation, M.d.l.D.V.S. and C.J.R.C.; writing—original draft preparation, M.d.l.D.V.S.; writing—review and editing, C.J.R.C., E.V. and B.V.P.E.; visualization, E.V.; supervision, B.V.P.E.; project administration, M.d.l.D.V.S.; funding acquisition, M.d.l.D.V.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and it is a part of a general research that have been approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee of University Center of Health Sciences, University of Guadalajara (protocol code 21-106, date of approval 28 April 2022). This project addressed the ethical considerations of the regulation of the official Mexican standard called Norma Official Mexicana NOM 004-SSA3-2012 and the General Health Law on health research, in articles 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17, with the understanding that it is not a work of experimentation or invasive medical intervention and implies minimal risk for the participants related to the application of psychological tests. for studies involving humans.

Informed Consent Statement

Broad informed consent was obtained from all the parents of the subjects involved in the study and broad letters of consent were obtained from all the participants. These included informed consent for publication.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

We recognize the support provided by National Council of Humanities, Science and Technology CONAHCYT during the implementation of the project.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Artola, T.; Barraca, J. Creatividad e imaginación. Un nuevo instrumento de medida: La PIC. EduPsykhé 2004, 3, 73–93. [Google Scholar]
  2. Escobar, A.; Gómez-González, B. Creatividad y función cerebral. Rev. Mex. Neurocienc. 2006, 7, 391–399. Available online: https://previous.revmexneurociencia.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Nm065-06.pdf (accessed on 20 April 2019).
  3. Rendón, M. Creativity and brain: Neurological bases of creativity. Aula 2009, 15, 117–135. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343974707_CREATIVIDAD_Y_CEREBRO_BASES_NEUROLOGICAS_DE_LA_CREATIVIDAD_Creativity_and_brain_neurological_bases_of_creativity (accessed on 4 April 2022).
  4. Betancourt, J.; Valadez, M. Cómo Propiciar el Talento y la Creatividad en la Escuela; Manual Moderno: Ciudad de México, Mexico, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  5. Chryskou, E. Creativity and out of (cognitive) control. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 2018, 27, 94–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Jía, W.; Zeng, Y. EEG signals respond differently to idea generation in a loosely controlled creativity experiment. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 2119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Ward, T.; Kolomyts, Y. Creative Cognition. In The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity; Kaufmann, J.C., Stenberg, R.J., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2019; pp. 177–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. De Manzano, Ö.; Ullén, F. Genetic and environmental influences on the phenotypic associations between intelligence, personality, and creative achievement in the arts and sciences. Intelligence 2018, 69, 123–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Piffer, D.; Hur, Y. Heritability of Creative Achievement. Creat. Res. J. 2014, 26, 151–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Pinho, A.; Ullén, F.; Castelo-Banco, M.; Fransson, P.; De Manzano, Ö. Addressing a Paradox: Dual Strategies for Creative Performance in Introspective and Extrospective Networks. Cereb. Cortex 2016, 26, 3052–3063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Beaty, R.; Benedek, M.; Wilkins, R.; Jauk, E.; Fink, A.; Silvia, P.; Hodgges, D.; Koschuting, K.; Neubauer, A. Creativity and the default network: Afunctional connectivity analysis of the creative brain at rest. Neuropsychologia 2014, 64, 92–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Chavez, C.; Rojas, O. Algunas consideraciones cobre el pensamiento divergente y la creatividad a partir de la resolución de un problema geométrico on múltiples vías de solución. Rev. Didáctica Matemáticas 2021, 107, 91–108. Available online: http://funes.uniandes.edu.co/23595/1/Chávez2021Algunas.pdf (accessed on 24 September 2023).
  13. Ferrández, C.; Ferrándiz, M.; Soto, G.; Sáinz, M.; Prieto, M. Pensamiento divergente y sus dimensiones: ¿De qué hablamos y qué evaluamos? An. Psicol. 2017, 33, 40–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Guallart-Balet, M.; Jiménez-Cortés, M.; Tuquet-Calvo, M.; Pelegrín-Valero, C.; Olivera-Pueyo, J.; Benabarre-Ciria, S.; Tirapu-Ustárroz, J. Validación española de la Iowa Rating Scale for Personality Change (IRSPC) para la valoración de los cambios de personalidad en pacientes con daño cerebral adquirido. Rev. Neurol. 2015, 60, 17–29. Available online: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25522860/ (accessed on 21 April 2018). [CrossRef]
  15. Broche-Pérez, Y.; Herrera-Jiménez, L.; Omar-Martínez, E. Bases neurales de la toma de decisiones. Neurología 2016, 31, 319–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Cipolotti, L.; Spanò, B.; Healy, C.; Tudor-Sfetea, C.; Chan, E.; White, M.; Biondo, F.; Duncan, J.; Shallice, T.; Bozzali, M. Inhibition processes are dissociable and lateralized in human prefrontal cortex. Neuropsychologia 2016, 93, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. López, I.; Rodillo, E.; Kleinsteuber, K. Neurobiología y diagnóstico del trastorno por déficit de atención. Rev. Médica 2008, 19, 511–524. Available online: https://www.clinicalascondes.cl/Dev_CLC/media/Imagenes/PDF%20revista%20médica/2008/5%20nov/06NEUROBIOLOGIA-6.pdf (accessed on 27 May 2018).
  18. Klimesch, W. Alpha-band oscillations, attention, and controlled access to stored information. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2012, 16, 606–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Ríos-Lago, J.; Periáñez, J.; Rodríguez-Sánchez, J. Neuropsicología de la Atención. In Manual de Neuropsicología; Tirapu-Ustárroz, J., Ríos-Lago, J., Maestú, J., Eds.; Viguera Editors: Barcelona, Spain, 2011; pp. 151–189. [Google Scholar]
  20. Contreras, D.; Catena, A.; Cándido, A.; Perales, J.; Maldonado, A. Funciones de la corteza prefrontal ventromedial en la toma de decisiones emocionales. Int. J. Clin. Health Psychol. 2008, 8, 285–313. Available online: http://www.aepc.es/ijchp/articulos_pdf/ijchp-278.pdf (accessed on 23 October 2018).
  21. Squillace, M.; Picón, J.; Schmidt, V. Juego de Cartas, una tarea para la evaluación de toma de decisiones riesgosas: Aportes a la validez ecológica y de constructo. Rev. Neuropsicol. Latinoam. 2015, 7, 37–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Flores, J.; Ostrosky, F.; Lozano, A. Batería de Funciones Frontales y Ejecutivas BANFE-2; Manual Moderno: Ciudad de México, Mexico, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  23. Alonso, J.; Benito, Y. Alumnos Superdotados: Sus Necesidades Educativas y Sociales; Bonum: Buenos Aires, Argentina, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  24. Sternberg, R.J.; Kaufman, J.C.; Roberts, A.M. The relation of creativity to intelligence and wisdom. In Cambridge Handbook of Creativity, 2nd ed.; Kaufman, J.C., Sternberg, R.J., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2019; pp. 237–353. [Google Scholar]
  25. Fugate, C.; Zentall, S.; Gentry, M. Creativity and working memory in gifted students with and without characteristics of attention deficit hyperactive disorder: Lifting the mask. Gift. Child Q. 2013, 57, 234–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Gagné, F. Academic talent development programs: A best practices model. Asia Pac. Educ. Rev. 2015, 16, 281–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. SEJ Convocatoria de Ingreso a la Primaria del Centro Educativo para Altas Capacidades. 2018. Available online: https://cepac.edu.jalisco.gob.mx/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/CONVOCATORIA-CEPAC-PRIMARIA-2023-2024-1-v3.pdf (accessed on 28 April 2023).
  28. Wechsler, D. Escala de Inteligencia Wechsler para Niños WISC IV; Manual Moderno: Ciudad de México, Mexico, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  29. Harada, T. The effects of risk-taking, exploitation, and exploration on creativity. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0235698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Harada, T. Mood and Risk-Taking as Momentum for Creativity. Front. Psychol. 2021, 11, 610562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Viana-Saenz, L. Función Ejecutiva en la alta Capacidad Intelectual. Master’s Thesis, Universidad de la Rioja, Logroño, Spain, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  32. Sastre-Riba, S. Niños con altas capacidades y su funcionamiento cognitivo diferencial. Rev. Neurol. 2008, 46 (Suppl. S1), 11–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Benedek, M.; Franz, F.; Heene, M.; Neubauer, A. Differential effects of cognitive inhibition and intelligence on creativity. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2012, 53, 480–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Sánchez-Macías, I.; Rodríguez-Media, J.; Aparicio, J. Evaluar la creatividad y las funciones ejecutivas: Propuesta para la escuela del futuro. Rev. Eñectrónica Interuniv. Form. Profr. 2021, 24, 35–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Benedek, M.; Jauk, E.; Sommer, M.; Arendasy, M.; Neubauer, A. Intelligence, creativity, and cognitive control: The common and differential involvement of executive functions in intelligence and creativity. Intelligence 2014, 46, 73–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Descriptive statistics of intelligence.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics of intelligence.
Intelligence Index 1MeanStandard Deviation
General intelligence133.887.628
Verbal comprehension134.5610.989
Perceptual reasoning131.4410.778
Working memory118.0010.062
Processing speed116.0013.973
1 This table shows intelligence indexes of participants from Wechsler Children’s Intelligence Scale, WISC-IV [28].
Table 2. BANFE-2 subscales and subfunctions.
Table 2. BANFE-2 subscales and subfunctions.
SubscaleNormal ScoreSubfunctionAbbreviation 1
MazesCross wallsAcceptance of limits and rulesTD-ACE-LR
Gambling cardsRisk–benefit percentageRisk–benefit analysis percentageTD-RA-P
Gambling cards effectivenessRisk–benefit analysis effectiveness in gambling cardsTD-RA-H
Stroop AStroop A mistakeInhibition of Stroop A mistakesTD-INH-STA-M
Stroop A timeInhibition of Stroop A timeTD-INH-STA-T
Stroop A effectivenessInhibition of Stroop A effectivenessTD-INH-STA-H
Stroop BStroop B mistakeInhibition of Stroop B mistakesTD-INH-STB-M
Stroop B timeInhibition of Stroop B timeTD-INH-STB-T
Stroop B effectivenessInhibition of Stroop B effectivenessTD-INH-STB-H
Classification cardsMaintenance errorsInhibition of maintenance errors in classification cards taskTD-INH-ME
1 This table shows abbreviations to be used in the following tables for a better understanding of each BANFE-2 [22] subscale and subfunction.
Table 3. Descriptive statistics of creativity.
Table 3. Descriptive statistics of creativity.
Creativity 1MeanStandard Deviation
General creativity67.3026.573
Fluid (Flu)62.5225.886
Flexibility (Flexi)67.6125.729
Narrative originality (O.N.)72.7022.493
Graphic originality69.4828.163
Elaboration47.8329.497
Shadow and color67.1324.052
Title49.0931.284
Special details79.005.901
Narrative creativity68.1325.446
Graphic creativity56.8326.834
1 This table shows descriptive statistics of creativity scores of the PIC test [1] participants.
Table 4. Descriptive statistics of decision-making function.
Table 4. Descriptive statistics of decision-making function.
Decision-Making Measures 1MeanStandard Deviation
Acceptance of limits and rules7.964.937
Risk–benefit analysis percentage10.763.282
Risk–benefit analysis effectiveness in gambling cards12.084.071
Inhibition of Stroop A mistakes11.653.856
Inhibition of Stroop A time10.652.914
Inhibition of Stroop A effectiveness11.062.461
Inhibition of Stroop B mistakes12.593.203
Inhibition of Stroop B time10.942.989
Inhibition of Stroop B effectiveness11.881.654
Inhibition of maintenance mistakes in classification cards task13.241.363
1 This table shows descriptive statistics of participants’ decision-making functions based on BANFE-2 [22] scores.
Table 5. Correlations between verbal creativity and decision-making function.
Table 5. Correlations between verbal creativity and decision-making function.
TD-ACE-LRTD-RA-PTD-RA-HTD-INH-STA-M 3
Flu0.3290.3830.267−0.247
Flexi0.2120.432 20.426 2−0.026
O.N.0.1740.3900.232−0.108
1 p ≤ 0.001. 2 p ≤ 0.05. 3 Abbreviations: Flu = fluency; Flexi = narrative flexibility; O.N. = narrative originality; TD-ACE-LR = acceptance of limits and rules; TD-RA-P = risk–benefit analysis percentage; TD-RA-H = effectiveness of risk–benefit analysis in gambling cards game; TD-INH-STA-M = inhibition of Stroop A mistakes.
Table 6. Correlations between verbal creativity and decision-making function (cont.) 3.
Table 6. Correlations between verbal creativity and decision-making function (cont.) 3.
TD-INH-STA-TTD-INH-STA-HTD-INH-STB-MTD-INH-STB-TTD-INH-STB-HTD-INH-ME
Flu−0.405−0.2720.2480.002−0.249−0.058
Flexi−0.224−0.1570.2750.058−0.194−0.034
O.N.−0.227−0.1310.3960.0910.0550.080
1 p ≤ 0.001. 2 p ≤ 0.05. 3 Abbreviations: cont. = continuation; Flu = fluency; Flexi = narrative flexibility; O.N. = narrative originality; TD-INH-STA-T = inhibition of Stroop A Time; TD-INH-STA-H = inhibition of Stroop A effectiveness; TD-INH-STB-M = inhibition of Stroop B mistakes; TD-INH-STB-T = inhibition of Stroop B time; TD-INH-STB-H = inhibition of Stroop B effectiveness; TD-INH-ME = inhibition of maintenance mistakes in classification cards task.
Table 7. Correlations between graphic creativity and decision-making function.
Table 7. Correlations between graphic creativity and decision-making function.
TD-ACE-LRTD-RA-PTD-RA-H
O.G.0.080−0.263−0.177
Elab0.198−0.0200.002
SC−0.045−0.1000.452 1
Tit0.0310.2600.306
DE0.2740.290−0.249
1 p ≤ 0.05. 2 Abbreviations: O.G. = graphic originality; Elab = elaboration; SC = shadow and color; Tit = title; DE = special details; TD-ACE-LR = acceptance of limits and rules; TD-RA-P = risk–benefit analysis percentage; TD-RA-H = risk–benefit analysis effectiveness in gambling cards game.
Table 8. Correlations between graphic creativity and decision-making function (cont.) 3.
Table 8. Correlations between graphic creativity and decision-making function (cont.) 3.
TD-INH-STA-MTD-INH-STA-TTD-INH-STA-HTD-INH-STB-MTD-INH-STB-TTD-INH-STB-HTD-INH-ME
O.G.−0.114−0.237−0.0310.110−0.1670.0120.071
Elab−0.217−0.2360.072−0.205−0.257−0.153−0.166
SC−0.0690.017−0.229−0.126−0.040−0.673 1−0.088
Tit−0.1640.199−0.2150.026−0.104−0.570 20.090
DE−0.0860.0740.1610.2730.3310.3530.113
1 p ≤ 0.01. 2 p ≤ 0.05. 3 Abbreviations: O.G. = graphic originality; Elab = elaboration; SC = shadow and color; Tit = title; DE = special details; TD-INH-STA-M = inhibition of Stroop A mistakes; TD-INH-STA-T = inhibition of Stroop A time; TD-INH-STA-H = inhibition of Stroop A effectiveness; TD-INH-STB-M = inhibition of Stroop B mistakes; TD-INH-STB-T = inhibition of Stroop B time; TD-INH-STB-H = inhibition of Stroop B effectiveness; TD-INH-ME = inhibition of maintenance mistakes in classification cards task.
Table 9. Correlations between general scores of creativity and decision making 3.
Table 9. Correlations between general scores of creativity and decision making 3.
TD-ACE-LRTD-RA-PTD-RA-H
CN0.2950.3790.338
CGf−0.038−0.0070.147
CG0.2550.3720.362
OM0.3430.3330.335
1 p ≤ 0.01. 2 p ≤ 0.05. 3 Abbreviations: CN = narrative creativity; CGf = graphic creativity; CG = general creativity; OM = orbitomedial functions; TD-ACE-LR = acceptance of limits and rules; TD-RA-P = risk–benefit analysis percentage; TD-RA-H = risk–benefit analysis effectiveness in gambling cards game.
Table 10. Correlations between general scores of creativity and decision making 3.
Table 10. Correlations between general scores of creativity and decision making 3.
TD-INH-STA-MTD-INH-STA-TTD-INH-STA-HTD-INH-STB-MTD-INH-STB-TTD-INH-STB-HTD-INH-ME
CN−0.128−0.317−0.2190.3490.064−0.108−0.057
CGf−0.231−0.163−0.0930.007−0.247−0.489 20.033
CG−0.146−0.285−0.2290.3710.018−0.101−0.007
1 p ≤ 0.01. 2 p ≤ 0.05. 3 Abbreviations: CN = narrative creativity; CGf = graphic creativity; CG = general creativity; TD-INH-STA-M = inhibition of Stroop A mistakes; TD-INH-STA-T = inhibition of Stroop A time; TD-INH-STA-H = inhibition of Stroop A effectiveness; TD-INH-STB-M = inhibition of Stroop B mistakes; TD-INH-STB-T = inhibition of Stroop B time; TD-INH-STB-H = inhibition of Stroop B effectiveness; TD-INH-ME = inhibition of maintenance mistakes in classification cards tasks.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Valadez Sierra, M.d.l.D.; Rodríguez Cervantes, C.J.; Verche, E.; Panduro Espinoza, B.V. Creativity and Decision Making in Giftedness. Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 251. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14030251

AMA Style

Valadez Sierra MdlD, Rodríguez Cervantes CJ, Verche E, Panduro Espinoza BV. Creativity and Decision Making in Giftedness. Education Sciences. 2024; 14(3):251. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14030251

Chicago/Turabian Style

Valadez Sierra, María de los Dolores, Celia Josefina Rodríguez Cervantes, Emilio Verche, and Beatriz Verónica Panduro Espinoza. 2024. "Creativity and Decision Making in Giftedness" Education Sciences 14, no. 3: 251. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14030251

APA Style

Valadez Sierra, M. d. l. D., Rodríguez Cervantes, C. J., Verche, E., & Panduro Espinoza, B. V. (2024). Creativity and Decision Making in Giftedness. Education Sciences, 14(3), 251. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14030251

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop