18

Educational Research ^arterly

2009

Problem Solving Style, Creative Thinking,

and Problem Solving Cotifidence
John C. Houtz

^dwin C. Selby
Fordham University

Forty-two undergraduate and graduate students completed VIEW:

An
Assessment of Problem Solving Style, the non-verbal Trrame Test Thinking
Creatively with Pictures, and the Problem Solving Inventory (PSI).
VIEW
assesses individuals' orientation to change, manner ofprocessing^ and wcrys of
deeding while the Torrance test measures severalproductivity measures, notably
ideational fiuency. The non-verbal form also yields one 'process" score:
resistance to closure. Finally, the Problem Solving Inventory measures
individuals' confidence in and affective control of their problem solving process,
plus an indication whether an "approach" or "avoidant" style is characteristic.
Consistent with VIEW theory, there was no relationship between actual
creative thinkingproduction andproblem solving style. However, VIEW scores
of orientation to change (OC) and ways of deciding (WD) were correlated
significantly with the Torrance measure of resistance to closure. On VIEW,
Explorers (OC) and Person-oriented deciders (WD) were more resistant to
closure.

For several years now, researchers have been able to study both the
affective as well as the cognitive aspects of human problem solving
(Sternberg, 1997; Sternberg & Grigorenko, 1997). llie construct of
creative problem solving style has been identified and distinguished
from measures of creative thinking ability and achievement
(Treffinger, Selby, Isaksen & Crumel, 2007). Style is defined as a
relatively stable preference an individual expresses when
approaching problems, considering information, and making
decisions. Style is an individual difference variable of human
behavior similar to other cognitive or information processing
styles, of which there are many that have been defined, measured,
and studied in the literature of educational psychology (Jonassen &
Grabowski, 1993).
Style theory is based on the proposition that the way a
problem solver prefers to approach or work on a problem can
greatly affect his or her success. This has been referred to as the

Vol. 33.1

EEjducational tJesearch Kfuarterly

19

"level-style" distinction (Isaksen & Dorval, 1993). In simpler terms,

style researchers have been interested in the "how" an individual
solves problems, instead of "how much" problem solving skill an
individual possesses. How individuals approach and work on
problems is important because there are many different types of
problems and problem contexts. Individuals with qualitatively or
sharply different preferences may be more or less able to adapt to
the conditions, limitations, and/or possibilities for soludons
inherent in different problem types and environments. When
problem solving work requites group activities, individuals with
differing styles may experience difficulties working together as well.
If the style of a learner or worker is known, then instruction can be
planned that complements that style rather than conflicts, thus
facilitatmg performance rather than hindering it (Cronbach &
Snow, 1977).
The purpose of the present study was to add to the
construct validity of VIEW: An Assessment of Problem Solving Style

(Selby, Treffinger, & Isaksen, 2002). VIEW is a reladvely new entry

into the creative problem solving style literature, but it is
distinguished by a substantial theoretical underpinning in cognitive
style and personality research. VIEW assesses three aspects of style
or preferences that individuals may have in their perceptions of
and approach to problems, in generating ideas, and evaluating and
choosing among possibies.
On VIEW, there is a person's Orientation to Change
(OC). Individuals may feel more comfortable working within a
structure, perhaps bending rules to "make a better box", so to
speak. On the other hand, some individuals may respond to change
by creating entirely new rules, preferring instead to "destroy
boxes". Another style difference is one's Manner of Processing
(MP). Individuals may prefer to search their own Internal resources
while considering ideas, or individuals may seek out External inputs
from other individuals. VIEWs third dimension is Ways of
Deciding (WD) among possible soludons. Some individuals are
Task-oriented, and select alternatives that "get the job done" as
effidendy as possible. Other individuals are Person-oriented and
select altemadves that take into consideradon the effects on other
people of various choices. Individuals can exhibit strong or

20

Educational Research ^luarterly

2009

moderate preferences, or no preferences at all. In any of these

cases, though, individuals may still experience success, and they can
and do solve problems.
To examiae the "level-style" distinction hypothesis
direcdy, this study compared results of VIEW with a measxire of
actual creative productivity, obtained from one of the Torrance Tests
of Creative Thinking (TTCT, Torrance, 1974). In addition, the Problem
Solving Inventory (PSI, Heppner, 1988), was selected to extend
VIEW theory to another measure that was developed and applied
in a discipline (general adjustment and counseling) different &om
the creativity literature. The PSI was designed to assess individuals'
perceptions of their own affective styles or ways they approach and
respond mostly to social and interpersonal problem situations.
Method
Participants

A convenience sample of participants included 23 graduate

and 19 undergraduate students from three psychology classes in a
major New York City university. Thirteen students were enxolled in
a Masters in Business Administration (MBA) program. Ten
students were Masters and doctoral candidates in counseling and
school psychology. Of the 19 undergraduates, most were junior
and senior psychology majors. There were 29 women and 13 men
and participants ranged in age fi:om 18 (one freshman) to 35 years
of age, widi a mean of 23.57 years (SD = 3.66). The majority of
participants were white. There were 2 each of Afiican-Americah
and Asian ethnic backgrounds and 6 of Hispanic ethnic identity.
Instruments

VIEW (Selby, Treffinger, & Isaksen, 2002, 2007) is a 34item self-report Likert-scale measuring three relatively independent
constructs: Orientation to Change (OC), Manner of Processing
(MP), and Ways of Deciding (WD). Individuals indicate their
preference along a bi-polar scale for each item. For OC, the poles
are "Explorer" or 'T)eveloper". For MP, die poles are "External"
and "Internal". For WD, the poles are "Person-odented" and
"Task-oriented". Of course, individuals may exhibit no
preferences, but the greater individuals rate themselves towards
either pole, the more likely they are to exhibit distinctive

Vol. 33.1

QEducational ISesearch Quarterly

21

approaches or behaviors in problem solving.

Similarly, the Problem Solving Inventory (PSI, Heppner, 1988;

Heppner, Witty, & Dixon, 2004) is a 35-item self-report measure to

which individuals respond on a 6-point scale to each item. The PSI
measures tliree constructs as well: 1) an individual's perceived
confidence, self-assurance, or self-efficacy in his or her problem
solving, 2) an individual's seeming approach or avoidance style in
problem solving, and 3) an individual's perceived sense of personal
control over his or her emodons or affecdve processes during
problem solving.
The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT, Torrance,

1974) have been among the most widely used assessments of

creadve thinking potendal since their inidal development in the
1950s. There are numerous versions and forms of these measures,
including verbal and non-verbal (drawing and acdon/movement)
assessments. Thinking Creatively with Pictures consists of three

drawing acdvides where individuals must add marks, Unes, shading,

and other drawing details to complete various ambiguous and
incomplete designs or figures. Scores for individuals' drawings
include fluency (the number of details added or drawings
completed), originality (how rare or unusual are the completed
drawings), and resistance to closure, a rating that represents the
degree to which judges feel that individuals' responses reflect a
deeper searching or thoughtfukiess for less obvious ideas.
The TTCT have established reliability and validity,
including decades-long longitudinal studies of predicdve validity.
They have been translated into many languages and applied
worldwide. Reviews of the TTCT exist in Bros' Mental
Measurements Yearbooks, Test Critiques, and major journals. As for the

PSI, reliability data have been reported in the 70s to 80s, and
construct validity through factor analyses is supported (Heppner,
1988; Heppner et al, 2004). It may be stated diat the TCT and PSI
are widely used and familiar measures to educadonal psychologists
and counselors. AS for the newer instrument, VIEW reports
reliabilides in the upper 80s and support for its three-factor
structure (Selby et al, 2007) with administradons currently
numbering more than 16,000. VIEW has been translated and
applied in several foreign countries (See www.viewstyle.net).

22

Klducational Research &iarterly

2009

Procedures

The three instruments were administered by the senior

author, who was the ixistructor for each of the three classes. VIEW
and PSI took approximately 10-15 minutes to complete. Thinking
Creatively with Pictures was a timed test, with each of die three
activities requiring 10 minutes to complete. Each itistrument was
part of the regular class activities, but participants understood their
results on these instruments were not part of course grades. The
instruments were administered on separate days during the Fall
2006 semester. Participants received feedback on their individual
and group scores and references and resources to pursue further
study related to their creative problem solving styles and
performance.
In the present study, the VIEW and PSIwete hand-scored
by the authors, both of whom are experienced researchers and
trained in test administration, scoring, and interpretation. Thinking
Creatively with Pictures was scored by Scholastic Test Sendee's
professional scoring service.

Results and Discussion

Several analyses were computed using the Statistical
Package for the Social Sciences. For each of the study variables,
tests of distribution normality were computed and no variable
exceeded normality parameters. Second, Atests comparing men and
women on each variable yielded only one significant difference.
Men were significantly more "Explorer" on VIEWs
OG
dimension {t - 2.01, p < .05). With regard to gender differences, it
should be noted that the mean of the women on Orientation to
Change was barely one point higher than the mid-point (72) of this
dimension reported in the VIEW matiual (Mwomm = 73.07, SD =
17.94). The mean for men's OC score in this sample was 61.85
(SD = 13.25). Table 1 presents descriptive statistics for the
participants on all study variables.
One-way analyses of variance were computed comparing the three
classes (the MBA psychology class, the graduate psychology class,
and the undergraduate psychology class). The only significant
difference observed was on the PSI personal control dimension,
where the undergraduate students rated themselves as much less in

Vol, 33,1

SBducational Research lyluarterly

23

control (M = 20,38, SD = 3,97) of their affect during problem

solving (F = 9,34,/) < 001), The students in both graduate classes
had virtually identical scores on personal control (M's = 14,42,
14.78, SDs = 2.39, 4,99),
Table 1: Descriptive Statistics for All Study Variables*
Variable

Mean

SD

Min

Max

Age

42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42

23,57
16,83
15,86
10,81
7,14
12,86
69,60
33,02
10,00
22,12
9.60
16,90
13.17

3,66
7,23
5.81
4.13
2.34
3.92
17,29
8.62

18
6
6
4
4

35
39
33
22
15
20
106
50

Ruency
Originality
Tides
Elaboration
Resistance
Change
Processing
Deciding
Confidence
Approach-Avoid,
Control
Total PSI

42

32.64

41
41

39.73

41
41

79.73

14
6,70

9
4.60

54

5
29
14
56
11
58
6
111

47
25

*Note: One participant failed to complete the PS.

As participants were a sample of convenient, partial

correlations were computed controlling for age and gender, to
measure the relationships between and among VIEW, PSI, and
Torrance scores. Among the three VIEW scores, correlations
were non-significant, ranging from -,009 to ,194, Among the PSI
dimension scores, correlations were non-significant, ranging from ,102 to ,246, Both of these results were consistent with VIEW ana
PSI theories and prior psychometrics, respectively.
However, among the Torrance scores, fluency was
significantly related to originality (r = ,62), elaboration (r - ,49),
and resistance to premature closure (r = .51), These correlations
were significant beyond ,01, Originality was correlated to
elaboration (r = ,35) and resistance (r = ,40). These correlations
were significant at the ,05 level. Elaboration and resistance were
significantly correlated ( r = .40,^ < .05).

24

Educational Research ^arterly

2009

Table 2: Partial Intercorrelations among Torrance Scores, Controlling for

Age and Gender
(N = 41, df=37)*
Originality
Tides
Elaboration
Resistance
49**
27
Fluency ' 59**
27
16
Originality
22
Tides
Elaboration
^
* p< .05; decimal points of correlations are omitted.

50**
34*
46**
37*

**/;<.01
Table 3: Partial Intercorrelations among VIEWScotcs, Controlling for Age
and Gender
(N = 41,df-37)*
Manner of Processing
Ways of Deciding
Orientation to Change
Processing
Deciding

-13

22
00

*Note: Decimal points of correlations are omitted.

The main impetus for this study was to further the

development of the new instrument, VIEW: An Assessment of
Problem Solving Style. All that we continue to leam about cognitive
processes, the mind, and its neurobiology has suggested that
affect^personality, emotion, "ways of approaching new tasks"^is
an important (if not equally important) variable affecting learning,
thinking, and problem solving. Measuring affective as well as
cognitive constructs has enabled more accurate predictions of
behavior and better understanding of how individuals perceive and
process information (Bloom, 1976; Cronbach, 1957; Feldhusen,
1995). Contemporary theories and recent advances in research have
continued to reinforce this point.
Style research has many contributors, beginning years ago,
perhaps, with Witkin's (Witkin, Moore, Goodenough, & Cox,
1977) construct of field-independence or field-dependence,
Kagan's (Kagan, Moss, & Sigel, 1963) impulsivity-reflectivity
(cognitive tempo), or Rotter's (1954) Intemality-Extemaltty
dimension. Numerous models of style exist today and have found
application to learning and the design of instruction (i.g., Dunn &

Vol. 33.1

IMIducational Isjesearch ^uarterly

25

Dunn, 1978; Jonassen & Grabowski, 1993).

Educational
psychologists recognized quickly and continue to recognize the
promise and potential of attribute- or trait-treatment interactions
based on style and other individual difference variables (Cronbach
& Snow, 1977; Kyllonen & Lajoie, 2003), but readily acknowledged
that research must continue.
The "level-style" distinction is central to continuing
studies. Its premise is that, in the ideal, absolute achievement is not
necessarily tied to one particular style. Individuals of differing styles
may achieve equally if their respective environments are compatible
with their style. In this study, none of VIEW and PSI scores were
significandy correlated with the Torrance measures of fluency,
originality, or elaboration. ITie measures used in this study did not
introduce the variable of problem context, so it was expected that
individuals with different styles would fare equally.
But when the problem solving context changes, as types of
problem situations or "demands" vary, different styles may be
more or less helpful. An individual with a particularly strong
preference may "match" the problem situation very well. The
opposite, or a "mismatch" may occur instead, and performance
may suffer. With knowledge of style, experiences and environments
can be created and/or manipulated to maximize performance
(Wang & Walberg, 1985). Since the TTCT involves very general,
somewhat "abstract" tasks, with the focus on fluency of ideas
rather than specific solutions, one style or another should not have
had an advantage. This is one of those cases in research where one
is pleased with the absence of statistical significance.
With respect to the Problem Solving Inventory, no PSI score

related sigmcantiy to three Torrance measures either. However, in

contrast to fluency, originality, and elaboration, it may be argued
that the Torrance resistance to premature closure score is more of
a measure of "persistence" rather than actual achievement
(Torrance, 1990). A high resistance to closure score may surest
that the individual is less willing to "give up" and, instead, will
continue to "process" more information. If so, then there are three
significant correlations that are interesting and consistent with style
theory.

26

ffiducadonal

Research Quarterly

2009

Table 4: Partial Intercorrelations among Problem Solving Inventory (PSI)

Scores,
Controlling for Age and Gender (N = 41, df = 37)*
Approach- Avoidance
Control PSI Total
Confidence
.12
Approach-Avoidance
Control
* p< .05; decimal points of correlations are omitted.
**/><.01

.24
-.15
;41*

.70**
.66**

Table 5: Partial Intercorrelations among Torrance and VIEW Scores,

Controlling for Age and Gender (N = 41, df = 37)*
Orientation
Processing
Deciding
Fluency
-05
16
-11
Originality
-00
09
06
Tides
-26
06
-19
Elaboration
-22
-02
01
Resistance to Closure
-32*
01
-31*
* p< .05; decimal points of correlations are omitted.

On VIEW, resistance to premature closure was

significantly correlated with OC and WD ( r - -.385, r = -.369,
respectively, both p < .05). The negative relationships imply that
both Explorers and Person-oriented deciders were more resistant
to closure. A covariance analysis controlling for age and gender
revealed a significant difference among high (Task-oriented
deciders), mid-range, and low scorers (Person-oriented deciders) (F
= 3.69, df = 2, 37, p < .05). Table 6 presents the means and
standard deviations of these three groups. Groups were defined as
follows: For the OC dimension, high = 76 or greater, low = 68 or
lower; for the MP and WD dimensions, high = scores of 36 or
greater; low = scores of 28 or less. The mid-point of these three
scales are 72, 32, and 32, respectively, with standard deviations of
18, 9, and 9 (Selby, et al., 2007). These group "definitions" used
scores approximately one-half standard deviations from the
respective VIEW midpoints. Covariance analyses for the OC and
MP group comparisons, however, were not significant.

Vol. 33.1

tiaducational itsJesearch ySkiarterly

27

Table 6: Means and Standard Deviations of TTCT" Resistance to Closure

Scores for Three Groups based on VTEWScotes
OC-Groups
Mp-Groups
WD-Groups
N Mean SD SE
N Mean SD SE
N Mean SD SE
Group
"Higher" 15 13.53 4.29 1.11
12 12.00 3.10 .90
15 15.07 2.89 .75
"Midrange" 14 13.29 3.54 .95
11 14.09 3.51 .94
12 11.92 4.12 1.19
"Lower" 13 11.62 3.88 1.08
19 12.68 4.57 1.05
15 11.40 3.89 1.01

On the PSI, resistance to closure was significantly related

to the approach-avoidance dimension {r .368,7) < .05), and this
positive relationship suggests that "avoidant" individuals are more
resistant to closure. This makes sense, although we acknowledge
that avoidant behaviors may not be "ideal" problem solving
behavior in many situations. As for the construct validity of
VIEW, on the other hand, these correlations are a positive
outcome. Explorers are your typical "out-of-the-box" thinkers,
deliberately, perhaps impatiently, pushing limits beyond the
"breaking point," so to speak, looking for or creating new
combinations, aU of which suggest that more than the initial
information presented in a problem situation must be "processed".
Similarly, Person-oriented deciders make choices only after or in
conjunction with additional information concerning how various
solutions likely will impact others. Individuals that are more eager
to end their work, find the quicker, perhaps easier solution path are
more Ukely to be less resistant to closure.
Effect s2es for the above three ANOVAs ranged from .49
to 1.01, with an average of .69. Despite the strong effect sizes,
from Cohen (1988), statistical power ranges from a low of .10 for
the OC and MP comparisons to .81 for the WD comparison.
Clearly, a limitation of this study is the small sample size.
Table 7: Partial Intercorrelations aniong VIEW and Problem Solving
Inventory (^PSI) Scores, Controlling for Age and Gender (N = 41, df = 37)*
Confidence
Approach- Avoidance
Control
PSI Total
Orientation -.04
-25
-24
-20
Processing -05
03
04
04
Deciding -10
-26
-19
-25
*Note: Decimal points of correlations are omitted.

28

UducatiotiallSesearchauarterly

2009

Table 8: Partial Intercorrelations among Torrance and Problem Solving

Inventory (PSI) Scores, Controlling for Age and Gender (N = 41, df = 37)*
PSI Total
Control
Approac h-Avoidance
Confidence
21
14
Fluency
-08
11
13
Originality -11
-11
-00
Tides
02
00
04
03
19
27
25
Elaboration 04
10
16
35*
Resistance -09
*p< ,05; decimal points of correlations are omitted.

Finally, the VIEW and PSI had no significant

intercorrelations. Possibly, one's confidence in or judgment of
problem solving self-efficacy may have Uttle to do with one's
problem solving style. With the "level-style" distinction.
Developers and Explorers, Internals or Externals, or Task- or
Person-oriented deciders may have had equal past successes
(and/or failures) in problem solving; thus, PSI confidence scores
are unaffected. On the other hand, one might also hypothesize that
Internal processors might feel in greater control and Externals less
in affective control during problem solving. Or, possibly Taskoriented decision-makers might be more inclined to score more
"approach-oriented" on the PSI Obviously, VIEWznd the PSI do
not appear to be measuring the same constructs and additional
research is desirable.
References
Bloom, B. S. (1976), Human characteristics and school learning. N e w

York: McGraw-Hill.
Cohen, J. (1988), Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2"''

ed.). Hillsdale,

NJ: Lawrence Edbaum.

D u n n , K., & D u n n , R, (1978). Teaching students through their individual

learning styles. Reston, VA: National Council of Prindpals.

Cronbach, L. J. (1957), The two disciplines of scientific psychology.
American Psychologist, 12, 671-684,

Cronbach, L. J,, & Snow, R. E, (1977), Aptitudes and instructional

methods: A handbook for

research on interactions. N e w York:

Irvington,
Feldhusen, J. F. (1995). Creativity: A knowledge base,
metacognidve skills, and personality factors. Journal of
Creative behavior, 29, 255-268,

Vol. 33.1

tfelducational [KJesearch y^artcrly

29

Heppner, P. P. (1988). The Problem Solving Inventory (PSI): Manual.

Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Heppner, P. P., Witty, T. E. , & Dixon, W. A. (2004). Problemsolving appraisal and
human adjustment: A review of
20 years of research using the Problem Solving Inventory. The
Counseling Psychologist, 32, 344-428.
Isaksen, S. G., & Dorval, K. B. (1993). Toward an improved
understanding of creativity within people: The level-style
distinction. In S. G. Isaksen, M. C. Murdock, R. L.
Firestein, & D. J. Treffinger (Eds.), Understanding and
recognir^ng creativity: The emergence of a discipline (pp. 299-330).
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Jonassen, D. H., & Grabowski, B. L. (1993). Handbook ofinvidual
differences, learning, and instruction. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kagan, J., Moss, H., & Sigel, I. (1963). Psychological significance of
types of conceptual2ations. Monographs of the Sodety for
Research in Child Development, 28 (2, Serial No. 86).
Kyllonen, P. C , & Lajoie, S. P. (2003). Reassessing aptitude:
Introduction to a special issue in honor of Richard E.
Snow. Educational Psychologist, 38, 79-83.
Rotter, J. B. (1954). Sodal learning and clinical psychology. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Selby, E. C , Treffinger, D. J., & Isaksen, S. G. (2002). VIEW: An
assessment of problem solving style. Sarasota, FL: Center for
Creative Learning, Inc.
Selby, E. C , Treffinger, D. J., & Isaksen, S. G. (2007). VIEW: An
assessment of problem solving style: Technical manual. Sarasota,
FL: Center for Creative Learning, Inc.
Selby, E. C , Treffinger, D. J., Isaksen, S. G., & Lauer, K J. (2004).
Defining and assessing problem-solving style: Design and
development of a new tool. Journal of Creative Behavior, 38,
221-243. (b)
Selby, E. C , Treffinger, D. J., Isaksen, S. G., & Lauer, K J. (2002).
VIEW: An assessment of problem solving style technical manual
and user's guide. Sarasota, FL: Center for Creative Learning,
Inc.
Stemberg, R. J. (1997). Thinking styles. New York: Cambridge
University Press.

30

Educational ISesearchbarterly

2009

Stemberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (1997). Are cognitive styles

still in style. American Psychologist, 52, 700-712.
Torrance, E. P. (1974). The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking
Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Test Service, Inc.
Torrance, E. P. (1990). Tbe Torrance Tests of Creative ThinkingNortns
Technical Manual Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Test Service.
Treffinger, D. J., Isaksen, S. G., & Stead-Dorval, K. B. (2006):
Creative problem solving. An introduction (4* ed.). Waco, TX:
Prufrock Press.
Treffinger, D. J., Selby, E. C , Isaksen, S. G., & Crumel, J. H.
(2007). An introduction to problem solving style. Sarasota, FL:
Center for Creative Learning, Inc.
Wang, M. C. & Walberg, H. J. (Eds.) (1985). Adapting instruction to
individual differences. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
Widdn, H. A., Moore, C. A., Goodenough, D. R., & Cox, R. W.
(1977). Field-dependent and fleld-independent cognitive
styles and their educational implications. Review of
Educational ^search, 47,1-64.
The authors wish to thank Dr. Donald J. Trenger, of the Center for
Creative Learning Inc., for helpful comments in the preparation of this report.