Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-k7rjm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-03T15:12:26.614Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

12 - Creativity in Young Children's Thought

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 January 2010

By
Susan A. Gelman  and
Gail M. Gottfried
Edited by
James C. Kaufman  and
John Baer
Susan A. Gelman
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Gail M. Gottfried
Affiliation:
Pomona College, Claremont, California
James C. Kaufman
Affiliation:
California State University, San Bernardino
John Baer
Affiliation:
Rider University, New Jersey
Get access

Summary

  • Adam (age 2-1/2) was taking a bath, and his mother said, “I'm going to get the shampoo” as she reached for the bottle of shampoo, which had a cap in the form of Winnie-the-Pooh's head. Adam replied, without missing a beat, “I want sham-piglet,” pointing at the bottle of bath bubbles, which had a cap in the form of Piglet's head (Gelman, 2003, p. ⅷ).

  • A conversation between a child (age 2 years) and her father:

  1. Sharon

  2. “I pretend the sand is a birthday cake!”

  3. Father

  4. “The sand is a birthday cake?”

  5. Sharon

  6. “I preTEND.” (Gottfried, unpublished data)

  • Stephanie (age 3-1/2) had been playing with a set of Duplo blocks that included stylized animal faces. The dog and cat were nearly identical; only the cat had eyelashes. Later that day, Stephanie announced that “hes” don't have eyelashes; only “shes” have eyelashes. Stephanie's mother then asked her husband to come into the room and take off his glasses. “Look at Daddy,” she said. “Does he have eyelashes?” Stephanie looked right into his eyes (framed by dark eyelashes) and said, “No. Daddy's a ‘he,’ and ‘hes’ don't have eyelashes” (Gelman, 2003, p. ⅷ).

  • “Do animals like pomegranates?” (Abe, age 2;11; Gelman, 2003, p. 205).

Although this chapter concerns creativity, we do not consider ourselves to be “creativity researchers” – that is, we do not study creativity per se. Rather, we are developmental psychologists who study children's concepts. However, we argue in this chapter that young children's ordinary thought entails a considerable degree of creativity.

Information

Type
Chapter
Information
Creativity and Reason in Cognitive Development , pp. 221 - 243
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Astuti, R., Solomon, G. E. A., & Carey, S. (2004). Constraints on cognitive development. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 69(3).Google Scholar
Barrett, M. D. (1978). Lexical development and overextension in child language. Journal of Child Language, 5, 205–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beals, D. E., & Snow, C. E. (1994). “Thunder is when the angels are upstairs bowling”: Narratives and explanations at the dinner table. Journal of Narrative and Life History, 4, 331–352.Google Scholar
Behrend, D. A. (1988). Overextensions in early language comprehension: Evidence from a signal detection approach. Journal of Child Language, 15, 63–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Billow, R. M. (1981). Observing spontaneous metaphor in children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 31, 430–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloom, L. (1973). One word at a time. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Bruner, J. (1974). Beyond the information given. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd.Google Scholar
Callanan, M. A., & Oakes, L. M. (1992). Preschoolers' questions and parents' explanations: Causal thinking in everyday activity. Cognitive Development, 7, 213–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual change in childhood. Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books, MIT Press.Google Scholar
Carlson, G. N., & Pelletier, F. J. (Eds.) (1995). The generic book. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chukovsky, K. (1963). From 2 to 5. Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Clark, E. V. (1982). The young word-maker: A case study of innovation in the child's lexicon. In Wanner, E. & Gleitman, L. R. (Eds.), Language acquisition: The state of the art (pp. 390–425). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, E. V., & Hecht, B. F. (1982). Learning to coin agent and instrument nouns. Cognition, 12, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crowley, K., Callanan, M. A., Jipson, J. L, Galco, J., Topping, K., & Shrager, J. (2001). Shared scientific thinking in everyday parent–child activity. Science Education, 85, 712–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deák, G. O., & Bauer, P. J. (1996). The dynamics of preschoolers' categorization choices. Child Development, 67, 740–767.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dromi, E. (1987). Early lexical development. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Elbers, L. (1988). New names from old words: Related aspects of childrens' metaphors and word compounds. Journal of Child Language, 15, 591–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elder, J. L., & Pederson, D. R. (1978). Preschool children's use of objects in symbolic play. Child Development, 49, 500–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fourment, M., Emmenecker, N., & Pantz, V. (1987). A study of the production of metaphors in 3 to 7 year old children. Année Psychologique, 87, 535–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelman, S. A. (2003). The essential child. New York: Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelman, R., & Baillargeon, R. (1983). A review of some Piagetian concepts. In Flavell, J. H. & Markman, E. (Eds.), Cognitive development. Vol. 3: Handbook of child development (pp. 167–230). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Gelman, S. A., Croft, W., Fu, P., Clausner, T., & Gottfried, G. M. (1998). The role of shape, taxonomic relatedness, and prior lexical knowledge in children's overextensions. Journal of Child Language, 25, 267–293.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gelman, S. A., & Gottfried, G. M. (1996). Children's causal explanations for animate and inanimate motion. Child Development, 67, 1970–1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelman, S. A., & Markman, E. M. (1986). Categories and induction in young children. Cognition, 23, 183–209.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gelman, S. A., Taylor, M. G., & Nguyen, S. (2004). Mother–child conversations about gender: Understanding the acquisition of essentialist beliefs. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 69.Google Scholar
Gelman, S. A., & Wellman, H. M. (1991). Insides and essences: Early understandings of the non-obvious. Cognition, 38, 213–244.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Giles, J. W. (2003). Children's essentialist beliefs about aggression. Developmental Review, 23, 413–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giménez, M., & Harris, P. L. (2002). Understanding constraints on inheritance: Evidence for biological thinking in early childhood. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 20, 307–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodman, N. (1954). Fact, fiction, and forecast. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gopnik, A., & Meltzoff, A. N. (1997). Words, thoughts, and theories. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gottfried, G. M. (1991). Preschoolers' “metaphoric” language: Intentional violation of established taxonomic category or undifferentiated similarity? Unpublished masters thesis, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Gottfried, G. M. (1997). Using metaphors as modifiers: Metaphoric compounds in preschoolers' speech. Journal of Child Language, 24, 567–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gottfried, G., & Gelman, S. A. (2005). Developing domain-specific causal-explanatory frameworks: The role of insides and immanence. Cognitive Development, 20, 137–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gottfried, G. M., Hickling, A. K., Totten, L. R., Mkroyan, A., & Reisz, A. (2003). To be or not to be a galaprock: Preschoolers' intuitions about the importance of knowledge and action for pretending. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 21, 397–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, S. A., Kilbreath, C. S., & Welder, A. N. (2004). Thirteen-month-olds rely on shared labels and shape similarity for inductive inferences. Child Development, 75, 409–427.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harris, P. L. (2000). The work of the imagination. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Heit, E., & Hayes, B. K. (in press). Relations between categorization, induction, recognition, and similarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General.Google Scholar
Heyman, G., & Gelman, S. A. (2000). Preschool children's use of novel predicates to make inductive inferences about people. Cognitive Development, 15, 263–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heyman, G., & Gelman, S. A. (2000). Preschool children's use of trait labels to make inductive inferences. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 77, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hickling, A. K., & Wellman, H. M. (2001). The emergence of children's causal explanations and theories: Evidence from everyday conversation. Developmental Psychology, 37, 668–683.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hickling, A. K., Wellman, H. M., & Gottfried, G. M. (1997). Conceptualizing pretense as pretense: Early understanding of others' mental attitudes toward pretend happenings. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 15, 339–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirschfeld, L. A. (2005). Children's understanding of racial groups. In Barrett, M. & Buchanan-Barrow, E. (Eds.), Children's understanding of society (pp. 199–221). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirschfeld, L. A., & Gelman, S. A. (1997). What young children think about the relation between language variation and social difference. Cognitive Development, 12, 213–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hood, L., & Bloom, L. (1979). What, when, and how about why: A longitudinal study of early expressions of causality. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 44 (Serial No. 181).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hutchinson, J. E., & Herman, J. P. (1991). The development of word-learning strategies in delayed children. Paper presented at the Boston University Conference on Language Development.
Hutchinson, J., Inn, D., & Strapp, C. (1993). A longitudinal study of one year-olds' acquisition of the mutual exclusivity and lexical gap assumptions. Paper presented at the Stanford Child Language Research Forum.
Inagaki, K., & Hatano, G. (2002). Young children's naïve thinking about the biological world. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Jaswal, V. K., & Markman, E. M. (2002). Children's acceptance and use of unexpected category labels to draw non-obvious inferences. In Gray, W. & Schunn, C. (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-fourth annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 500–505). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kuhn, D., Amsel, E., & O'Loughlin, M. (1988). The development of scientific thinking skills. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Leopold, W. (1939). Speech development of a bilingual child: A linguist's record. Vol. I. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Leopold, W. (1949). Speech development of a bilingual child: A linguist's record. Vol. III. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Lillard, A. S. (1993). Young children's conceptualization of pretense: Action or mental representational state? Child Development, 64, 372–386.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lillard, A. S. (1998). Wanting to be it: Children's understanding of intentions underlying pretense. Child Development, 69, 981–993.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES Project: Tools for analyzing talk (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Markman, E. M., & Hutchinson, J. E. (1984). Children's sensitivity to constraints on word meaning: Taxonomic versus thematic relations. Cognitive Psychology, 16, 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Medin, D. L., Coley, J. D., Storms, G., & Hayes, B. K. (2003). A relevance theory of induction. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 517–532.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Naigles, L. G., & Gelman, S. A. (1995). Overextensions in comprehension and production revisited: Preferential-looking in a study of dog, cat, and cow. Journal of Child Language, 22, 19–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Reilly, A. W. (1995). Using representations: comprehension and production of actions with imagined objects. Child Development, 66, 999–1010.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prasada, S. (2000). Acquiring generic knowledge. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 66–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Richert, R., & Lillard, A. S. (2004). Observers' proficiency at identifying pretense acts based on behavioral cues. Cognitive Development, 19, 223–240.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. New York: Oxford.Google Scholar
Schlesinger, I. M. (1982). Steps to language. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Shatz, M. (1994). A toddler's life: Becoming a person. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sloutsky, V. M. (2003). The role of similarity in the development of categorization. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 246–251.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Solomon, G. E. A. (2002). Birth, kind and naïve biology. Developmental Science, 5, 213–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spelke, E. S. (2003). What makes humans smart? In Gentner, D. & Goldin-Meadow, S. (Eds.), Advances in the investigation of language and thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, M. (1999). Imaginary companions and the children who create them. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, M., & Carlson, S. M. (2002). Imaginary companions and elaborate fantasy in childhood: Discontinuity with nonhuman animals. In Mitchell, R. W. (Ed.), Pretense in animals and humans (pp. 167–182). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Thomson, J. R., & Chapman, R. S. (1977). Who is daddy revisited: The status of two-year-olds' over-extended words in use and comprehension. Journal of Child Language, 4, 359–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M., Striano, T., & Rochat, P. (1999). Do young children use objects as symbols? British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 17, 563–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vosniadou, S., & Ortony, A. (1983). The emergence of the literal-metaphorical-anomalous distinction in young children. Child Development, 54, 154–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wellman, H. M., & Gelman, S. A. (1998). Knowledge acquisitions in foundational domains. In W. Damon (Editor-in-chief) & Kuhn, D. & Siegler, R. (Eds.), Handbook of Child Psychology. Vol 2: Cognition, perception, and language (5th ed.). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Windsor, J. (1993). The functions of novel word compounds. Journal of Child Language, 20, 119–138.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Winner, E. (1979). New names for old things: The emergence of metaphoric language. Journal of Child Language, 6, 469–491.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Winner, E., McCarthy, M., Kleinman, S., & Gardner, H. (1979). First metaphors. In Wolf, D. & Gardner, H. (Eds.), Early symbolization: New directions for child development (Vol. 3, pp. 29–41). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Yamauchi, T. (2005). Labeling bias and categorical induction: Generative aspects of category information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 538–553.Google ScholarPubMed
Yamauchi, T., & Markman, A. B. (2000). Inference using categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 776–795.Google ScholarPubMed

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this book is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×