Suicide ideation and creative problem solving

Suicide Ideation and Creative Problem Solving Wayne Mraz and Mark A. Runco, PhD

This investigation utilized the recent technology for the assessment of creativity to exam- ine the association between problem solving and suicide ideation. Three kinds of problem- finding and -solving tasks were administered to 81 (nonclinical) college students. One of these tasks assesses “problem generation” and was expected to be particularly informa- tive, given that individuals considering suicide may perceive many problems but find few solutions. Results supported this expectation: Problem generation scores were significantly correlated with suicide ideation, even after stress was statistically controlled. A sec- ondary analysis suggested that the originality and flexibility of solutions may be influ- enced by the particular problem an individual faces.

The 15 most common causes of death an- nually account for 86% of the 2,155,000 deaths in the U.S. (Haub, 1991). Diseases of the heart are most common (approxi- mately 296 deaths per 100,000 individuals), with malignant neoplasms second (200), cerebrovascular diseases third (59), and then accidents (38), pneumonia and in- fluenza (30), and diabetes (19). Suicide is eighth on the list (13 per 100,000). This puts it ahead of homicide, AIDS, and ath- erosclerosis. Although the overall rate of death is decreasing, the rate of suicide has continued to rise. For example, the U.S. Bureau of Census reported that suicide rose by 100% between 1950 and 1988 (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1989).

Psychological explanations of suicide often focus on depression, stress, and problem solving. Put simply, poor problem solvers may become depressed, experience hopelessness, and think about suicide when they are faced with high levels of stress. Research is largely supportive of this argument (e.g., Dixon, Heppner, & Anderson, 1991; McLeavey, Daly, Mur- ray, O’Riordan, & Taylor, 1987; Patsio- kas, Clum, & Luscomb, 1979; Schotte &

Clum, 1987). Dixon et al., for example, found evidence in two samples of introduc- tory psychology students that life stress and self-appraised (ineffective) problem solving were strongly linked with higher levels of hopelessness and suicide ideation.

Most research in this area relies on the Alternate Uses test, a common test of divergent thinking. Patsiokas et al. (1979), for instance, administered the Uses test to suicide attempters and a nonsuicidal psychiatric control group. The individuals in the first group had previously performed acts of self-inflicted, life- t hrea tening b e havior. Patsiokas et al. focused on cognitive rigidity, field dependence, and cognitive impulsivity, and for this reason they used the Embedded Figures Test and the Matching Familiar Figures Test, as well as Alternate Uses. The results supported the prediction that suicide ideators are cognitively rigid. In support of the problem-solving view, the subject group that had previously attempted suicide had significantly lower scores than the control group on the Alternate Uses Test. There were no significant differences in field de-

Wayne Mraz and Mark A. Runco are at California State University, Fullerton. Address Correspondence to Mark A. Runco, EC 105, California State University, 800 N. State College Blvd., Fullerton, CA 92634.

This pa er was completed while the second authoi was visiting in the cognitive Unit of the University of Bergen. 8 e would like to express his gratitude to that unit, and to Geir Kaufmann in particular. Additional gratitude is due Ruth Richards for her comments on an early draft and especially for the prediction about experienced depressive persons.

38 Suicide and LifeThreatening Behavior, Vol. 24(1), Spring 1994

0 1994 The American Association of Suicidology

MRAZ AND RUNCO 39

pendence, although young suicide attempters (between 19 to 34 years) were significantly more field dependent than the control group. The two groups did not differ in cognitive impulsivity.

Schotte and Clum (1987) assessed the hopelessness, life stress, cognitive rigidity, interpersonal problem-solving skills, and depression of 100 hospitalized psychiatric patients. Subjects were placed in the experimental group if they admitted in an interview to being suicidal, and if this was supported by the observations of a treatment team. Schotte and Clum found that the suicidal subjects (85% of whom were diagnosed as schizophrenic, with an additional 10% suffering from a major depressive disorder) reported significantly higher levels of stress than a matched control group (selected from hospital records), and stress was correlated with suicide intent and hopelessness. Here again, the suicide ideators performed worse than the control group on the cognitive measures. Moreover, their solutions to the problems focused more on negative implications than did those of the control group, and the higher the suicide ideation, the less likely was the implementation of ideas. In- terpersonal problem-solving ability was unrelated to hopelessness. McLeavey et al. (1987) reported similar divergent thinking results in research specifically with self-poisoning patients.

The relationship between problem solving and suicide ideation may vary in different populations. This is suggested by Schotte and Clum (1982) in their work with 96 suicide ideators from a group of 175 college students. Correlational analyses indicated that life stress, depression, and hopelessness were significantly associated with suicide ideation. In contrast to the research cited above with clinical samples, no difference was found between the cognitive performances of suicide ideators and the control group. Scores on Alterna- tive Uses measures were unrelated to suicide ideation.

There is, then, some support for the view that problem solving contributes to suicide ideation tendencies (also see Or-

bach, Bar-Joseph, & Dror, 1990), with poor problem solving associated with more frequent suicide ideation, at least in clinical populations. Schotte and Clum (1982) failed to find an association b e tween suicide ideation and performance on the Alternate Uses test in a college population, but it could be that the problem solving is relevant only for clinical populations. Another possibility is that previous assessments of nonclinical samples were not sensitive enough. Indeed, we believe that the previous research with open- ended problem solving measures is biased by its reliance on the Alternate Uses test. That test is popular- as the previous investigations in this area demonstrate- but it has serious limitations. It is, for example, a timed test, with somewhat artifi- cial (or at least not intrinsically interesting) questions (e.g., “list uses of a brick), and usually only one score is used. That score, ideational fluency, indicates the number of ideas given by an examinee and does not capture other important aspects of problem solving (e.g., ideational originality or flexibility).

The present study was designed to reex- amine the view of problem solving and suicide ideation, described above, using a nonclinical college population. One unique aspect of this study was its utilization of the most recent technology for the assessment of creative problem solving. In particular, a small battery of “real-world (or realistic) divergent thinking tests was used (Chand & Runco, 1992). This battery contains three kinds of tests. The first contains real-world-presented problems. It is similar to the Alternate Uses test, although it seems to have more respectable reliability and predictive validity (Okuda, Runco, & Berger, 1991). Its emphasis on real-world problems is particularly important. In the present study, we used the questions from the original research, which described problems at school (e.g., late homework) and problems at work, but we also added two new problems. These dealt with a friend contemplating pregnancy and a situation where a friend is se- riously depressed. Two kinds of problems

40 SUICIDE AND LIFE-THREATENING BEHAVIOR

were included and compared because of earlier research (reviewed by Runco, in press-a) showing that different divergent thinking problems elicit significantly different scores, both in content and in sheer quantity. Three ideational dimensions (i.e., fluency, originality, and flexibility) were used for such comparisons. This was critical because of the three indices, flexibility is the most closely tied to adaptive thinking (Richards, 1990) and is thought to allow individuals to avoid rigidity and fixity (Runco, 1985; Runco & Okuda, 1991).

The second task in this battery assesses problem generation, and the third assesses an individual’s ability to select and solve a workable problem. These too are real-world tasks, but they take problem finding into account. Problem finding may be more important for creative thinking thah problem solving (Csikszentmi- halyi, & Getzels, 1971; Runco, in press-c). Problem finding- and in particular the problem generation task -may be particularly useful in studies of suicide ideation. This is because the problem generation task only asks that the respondent find, recognize, or construct problems -no solutions are required. Perhaps individuals considering suicide are able to construct or discover problems, but are unable to find solutions.

Because suicide ideation undoubtedly reflects more than inefficient problem solving, three other measures were zdminis- tered in this project. One was Domino’s (1988) Suicide Opinion Questionnaire (SOQ). The other two focused on perceived stress. Perceived stress was assessed in this investigation rather than life events because it avoids assumptions about stress as an inevitable reaction to poten- tially stressful life events.

The last unique aspect of this study involved the treatment of the data. Unlike most earlier research, data from all measures were coded as continuous, thus al- lowing multiple regression analyses rather than simple group comparisons. This allowed us to avoid the loss of data that results from dichotomizing into groups (Cohen & Cohen, 1975).

METHOD

Participants

Six questionnaires and a packet containing the problem-solving tasks were administered to 81 (29 males, and 52 females) university students from introduction to psychology and child development classes. The students were given credit for partici- pating in this investigation. The mean age of the participants was 21, with a range of 18 to 46 years. Self-reports indicated that 4 students had previously attempted suicide, and 7 were presently in counseling for unspecified reasons. The frequency of suicide ideation is, of course, indicated by the participants’ responses to the questionnaires.

Measures

The divergent thinking tasks are d e scribed above, and additional information can be found in Chand and Runco (1992). Recall here that two kinds of problems were given. One set (received by a ran- domly selected subgroup, n = 40), pre sented problems of a relatively innocuous nature (e.g., about homework). The other set (given to all other subjects, n = 41) asked somewhat sensitive questions (e.g., solutions to an unplanned pregnancy). All presented problems and were given fluency, originality, and flexibility scores. The problem generation tasks were scored the same way. The last two tasks could only be scored for fluency because responses could not be compared; each student solved problems of his or her own de- sign.

The Scale for Suicide Ideation (BSSI- Beck, Kovacs, & Weissman, 1979) assesses conscious suicidal intent, focusing on self-destructive thoughts or desires. Each of the 19 items has three response options (i.e., 0-2). A total score is used, with a range from 0 to 8. Beck et al. (1979) reported an interrater reliability of .83.

The Suicide Ideation Scale (SIS - Rudd, 1989) is a self-report that contains 10 questions, each with five options (e.g., 1 = never, 5 = always or a great many

MRAZ AND RUNCO 41

times). The questions concern suicidal thoughts or behaviors that may have oc- curred in the past year. Several questions were reworded to be consistent with the format of the other measures used herein (e.g., “I have been thinking of ways to kill myself” was changed to “In the past year, I have thought about ways to kill myself”). The SIS has a high internal reliability (.go), and has been used with college students in a number of studies.

The Hopelessness Scale (Beck, Weiss- man, Lester, & Trexler, 1974) measures expectations of negative events. I t contains 20 true (1 point) or false (0 points) questions and has a range of scores between 0 and 20. Beck et d. reported an internal consistency (reliability) of .93.

The Suicide Opinion Questionnaire (SOQ-Domino, 1988) contains 100 items about attitudes and opinions toward suicide, and 7 items concerning demograph- ics. Response options range from strongly agree (1) to strongly disagree (5). There are eight subscales: Cry for Help, Right to Die, Religion, Normality, Aggression, Mental Illness, Impulsivity, and Moral Evil.

The Perceived Stress Scale (PSS - Co- hen, Kamarck, & Mermelstein, 1983) asks about the degree to which the respondent believes that he or she has experienced stress. It contains 14 items, with a graded scoring system ranging from 0 (never) to 4 (very often). The sum of the questions gives a perceived stress score, with a range of 0-52. Cohen et al. reported an alpha reliability of .85.

As the name implies, the Student Stress Inventory (SSI) was specifically designed to assess students’ stress. The sixth form of the SSI contained 30 items (Dobson & Metcalfe, 1983), and 10 items were added to the present version. Six of these were taken from Hamilton and Fagot (1988). They focus on insufficient sleep, transpor- tation problems, lack of time, political events, falling behind in class, and injury or sickness. The other four items were added to ensure that questions were relevant to the students at our specific (com- muter) university. These questions focused on conflicting schedules between

work and school, work demands interfer- ing with study time, problems with room- mates, and financial difficulties. The individual items are scored by indicating how stressful they are to the student, with 0 indicating no stress at all and 3 indicating extreme stress. Five SSI subscales were used, and as in Dobson and Metcalfe (1983), the subscales contained most but not all of the SSI items. (Dobson and Met- calfe identified their three subscales with a factor analysis.) The first subscale- Dobson and Metcalfe’s factor 1 -focused on “getting down to work” (items 1, 7, 10, 12, 24, and 30). The second subscale-factor 5 in Dobson and Metcalfe - focused on “future goals” (items 4, 14, and 21). The third- Dobson and Metcalfe’s factor 6 - focused on “demands of academic life” (items 11,19, and 28). The fourth subscale contained the six questions from Hamil- ton and Fagot (1988), and the last contained the four added questions. An SIS total score was also calculated.

Procedure

The materials were distributed to the participants in three packets. The investiga- tors first read general instructions and ex- plicitly informed the participants that they could leave at any time during the testing period. The first packet (containing the six divergent thinking tasks) was then distributed. Every other student was given the new divergent thinking tests. After completing the first packet, students were to return it to the experimenter. He then gave each the second packet (containing the BSSI and the SSI). Again after completing the packet, students were to return it to the experimenter, and he gave each the last packet (containing the Hopelessness Scale, SIS, PSS, and SOQ). This procedure served two purposes: First it gave the students a short break between measures, and second it gave the experimenter an opportu- nity to ascertain that all items on the various instruments were completed. There were no time limits; testing required ap- proximately 2 hours. Subjects were told:


The nature of this investigation is to assess perceived stress, cognitive style, and what some re- searchers have called “suicide ideation,” or thoughts of suicide. . . . Your names will not be used in any way. . . .

They were also told to terminate their involvement if they felt any discomfort (information about suicide was given to all subjects at the end of testing) and asked to take their time. A debriefing followed the data collection. This gave information about the theory being tested (i.e., suicide ideation and problem solving) and about divergent thinking, and (at the request of the university Human Subjects Commit- tee) it included information about how to help friends who might be thinking about suicide. Subjects were also asked not to discuss the project with other students.

RESULTS

Canonical and Principal Components Analyses

Two canonical correlation analyses were conducted for overall assessments of the relationships among predictors and crite- ria. The first analysis used the divergent thinking test scores and the two stress total scores as predictors, and the hopelessness and suicide ideation variables as cri- teria. Results indicated that the divergent thinking and stress variables were significantly associated with suicide ideation (R, = .69,p < .001). A similar analysis indicated that the eight SOQ scales were also significantly related to suicide ideation (R, = .68,p < .0001)

Two principal components analyses were then conducted to reduce the number of variables. These also helped guard against Type I1 errors by keeping the number of analyses to a minimum. The first principal components analysis used the three measures of suicide ideation (BSSI, SIS, and Hopelessness). Hopeless- ness was included here for three reasons. First, it is closely tied to suicide ideation (Beck et al., 1974). Second, its format and contents are similar to those of the suicide

ideation scales. For example, one item on the Hopelessness scale reads “I might as well give up because I can’t make things better for myself.” Third, the principal components analysis was correlational, and thus no causal interdependence is as- sumed.

As a matter of fact, the results supported the decision to include the Hope lessness scale with the suicide ideation scales: one component accounted for 73.6% of the variance (eigenvalue = 2.21). The loadings were as follows: BSSI (.91), SIS (.86), and Hopelessness (241).

A second principal components analysis indicated that two components accounted for 84% of the variance in the divergent thinking test scores. The first accounted for 67.8% of the variance (eigenvalue = 4.74) and was essentially a problem- solving component, with highest loadings on the fluency, originality, and flexibility scores from the presented problem tasks (.93, .92, and .90, respectively). The second component accounted for 16.2% of the variance (eigenvalue = 1.13) and was essentially a problem generation component, with highest loadings on the fluency and flexibility scores from the problem generation tasks (.93 and .92, respectively). Regression factor scores were calculated for the various components and used in subsequent analysis.

Multiple Regression Analyses Several preliminary multiple regression analyses were computed. The first indicated that the stress total scores were significantly associated with the suicide ideation factor (R = .42, p = .005). Ex- amination of the regression weights indicated that the scale developed specifically for this investigation was most important (0 = .37, t(75) = 2.36, p = .02). The second analysis indicated that the SOQ composites were also significantly associated with the suicide ideation factor (R = .66, p = .0001). Examination of the weights indicated that the compos- ite reflecting Suicide as Normal was the best predictor of suicide ideation (P = .63,

MRAZ AND RUNCO 43

t(73) = 5.84, p = .0001). Attitudes about Aggression were marginally and negatively related to suicide ideation ( p =

The next regression analysis tested a di- chotomous Group variable (representing the two groups who received different divergent thinking test questions), the problem generation factor, the presented problem factor, the Group x divergent thinking interactions, the SSI, the PSS, and the SSI x PSS interaction. Group was insignificant (R2-change = .03), but the problem generation factor was significantly related to suicide ideation (R2- change = .06, p = .02). The presented problem scores were not significant (R2- change = .007) nor were the Group x divergent thinking interactions (R2-change = .008). The SSI and the PSS were each significantly related to suicide ideation (R'ychanges = .15 and .14, respectively, ps = .0003 and .0001), and the last interactions were insignificant (R2-change = .03). At the step in this equation when the last significant predictor - the PSS measure-was added, 36% of the suicide ideation variance was explained (R = .605,

When the order of entry was reversed for the two divergent thinking scores, problem generation remained significant (R2-change = .06, p = .03) and the presented problems remained insignificant (R2-change = .008). When the order of entry for the two stress predictors was reversed, the PSS remained significant (R2- change = .29, p = .0001), but the SSI was insignificant @-change = .004).

To test the prediction about the importance of ideational flexibility, one regression analysis used only the problem generation scores but tested fluency, flexibility, and originality separately. Results indicated that fluency scores were associated with suicide ideation (R = .22, p = .05), but flexibility and originality did not add significant portions of variance to that prediction (R2-changes = .005 and .02, respectively). The interaction between problem generation fluency and problem- solving flexibility accounted for a signifi-

-.18, t(73) = 1 . 9 0 , ~ = .057).

p = .0001).

cant increment of variance in the suicide ideation factor (R = .30, p c .06, R2- change = .05,p c .05).

One last regression analysis was d e signed to test predictions in a parsimoni- ous fashion and to take advantage of what was uncovered from the previous analyses. In the first, only the fluency scores from the problem generation test were used, rather than both divergent thinking factors or all three divergent thinking indices. Similarly, only the PSS was used as the index of stress, and only the Suicide as Normal scale from the SOQ was used, rather than all seven SOQ scales. These three predictors were tested in that order, with the fluency x Normality, PSS x Normality, fluency x PSS, and three-way interactions tested immediately thereaf- ter. Results indicated that problem generation scores were related to suicide ide ation (R = .22, p = .04), as were the PSS and Normality predictors (Rs = .58 and .69, respectively, R2-changes = .29 and .14, all ps c .0001). Of the interactions, only PSS x Normality was significant (R = .71, R2-change = .03, ps = .0001 and .04, respectively). Product moment coefficients are presented in Table 1.

Group Differences

Although the regression test of the Group variable indicated that the two kinds of divergent thinking tests were not differen- tially related to suicide ideation, the different tests may have elicited significantly different scores. And in fact, multiple analysis of variance (MANOVA) confirmed this: There was a significant difference among tests indicated by the multi- variate test (F(7, 73) = 6.58, p < .001) and the following univariate tests: p re sented problem fluency (F(1, 79) = 16.11, p < .001), flexibility (F(1, 79) = 12.15, p c .001), and originality (F( 1,79) = 10.83, p c .001); and problem generation flexibility (F(1, 79 = 5.56, p < .02) and originality (F(1, 79) = 3.95, p c .05). Descrip- tive statistics are presented in Tables 2 and 3.


Table 1 Product Moment Correlation Coefficients

2 3 4 5

1. Suicide Ideation 56** 41** - 09 24* 2. PSS 62** - 11 10 3. SSI -26* 13 4. Presented Problems 00 5. Problem Generation Note. The PSS is the Perceived Stress Scale, and the SSI is the Student Stress Inventory. Suicide ideation, presented problem scores, and problem generation scores were based on principal components analyses. The correlation between the presented problems and problem generation r e flects the orthogonality of the principal components. *p < .05. **p < .01.

DISCUSSION

This investigation was unique in its use of multiple indices (i.e., fluency, originality, and flexibility) from realistic divergent thinking tests (including a problem generation task) as predictors of suicide ideation. The rationale was that these divergent thinking tests were more appropriate than the Alternate Uses test and its fluency index used in earlier investigations. Results confirmed that divergent thinking was significantly associated with suicide ideation. This was implied by the canonical results and the multiple regression analyses.

Of most importance may have been the multiple regression which tested diver-

gent thinking, perceived stress, and attitudes about suicide as predictors. Here divergent thinking was significantly associated with suicide ideation, as was perceived stress and the scale representing the attitude that suicide is normal (the latter two being partial correlations). The significant association between divergent thinking and suicide ideation is important in that all previous evidence of a relationship between problem solving and suicide ideation has come from clinical populations (e.g., Dixon et al., 1991; Prezant & Neimeyer, 1988; Schotte & Clum, 1987). Earlier work on the divergent thinking of college students failed to uncover an association (Schotte & Clum, 1982).

Also very important was the interaction

Table 2 Descriptive Statistics (by Group) for Divergent Thinking Measures

Group 1 Group 2

M SD M SD

Problem solving Fluency 12.18 6.13 7.83 3.20 Flexibility 9.78 4.27 7.02 2.67 Originality 4.05 4.19 1.71 1.77

Problem generation Fluency 11.23 5.26 10.39 5.37 Flexibility 8.83 3.65 7.12 2.80 Originality 4.63 4.09 3.20 2.09

divergent thinking Discovered problem

Fluency 8.13 4.21 7.68 3.43

Note. Group 1 received the divergent thinking problems which asked about pregnancy and depression. Group 2 received the problems which focused on homework and employment.

MRAZ AND RUNCO 45

Table 3 Descriptive Statistics for Stress

and Attitude Scales

M SD

Stress measures PSS SSI

Attitude (SOQ) Mental Illness Cry for Help Right to Die Religion Impulsivity Normality Aggression Moral Evil

28.74 7.79 5.70 20.14

3.26 0.35 3.12 0.36 2.30 0.71 2.90 0.58 2.97 0.38 2.78 0.66 3.21 0.52 2.90 0.69

Note. The SOQ (Domino, 1988) is the Suicide Opinion Questionnaire.

that indicated that suicide ideation was associated with problem generation fluency and problem solving flexibility (associated with the former positively and the latter negatively). This suggests that suicide ideation is a reaction to the tendency to see a large number of personal problems while having few adaptive solutions.

The nonsignificant interaction between divergent thinking and stress may reflect the fact that individuals who are capable of effective divergent thinking will be able to avoid stress. This explanation parallels the argument about problem solving and suicide ideation, for just as a flexible problem solver might be expected to consider other options besides suicide, so too would an individual capable of divergent thinking be able to adapt to solve or reinterpret the problems that might otherwise lead to stress. To the degree that divergent thinking is associated with creativity, it can be viewed as an adaptive skill and a coping mechanism (Flach, 1990; Richards, 1990; Runco, in press-b). Additional evidence for the negative relationship between creativity and stress was presented by D’Zurilla and Sheedy (1991).

Although more research is needed, it is tempting to speculate about problem generation being a critical determinant of stress, depression (or at least some forms), and suicide ideation. Stress apparently contributes to the suicide ideation of some

individuals (e.g., those suffering but at subclinical levels), but like depression it may result from poor problem solving. Individuals who can effectively solve problems tend to be adaptive (Cohen, 1989; Richards, 1990) and psychologically healthy (Runco, Ebersole, & Mraz, 1991). If the individual is ineffective in problem solving, on the other hand, adaptations are difficult and he or she may not be able to avoid make stress, depression, and perhaps even suicide ideation. The interesting thing is that problem generation is a constructive process. Problems are not in the environment; they may be triggered by certain situations, but situations are only problematic when an individual inter- prets them as such. This is, of course, the same logic used to explain stress (Runco, 1990), but that is our point: Stress and suicide ideation are tied to the constructive, interpretive aspects of problem solving (herein operationalized as problem generation).

The MANOVA showing group differences indicated that the different kinds of problems elicited significantly different ideas, with individuals who received the questions about pregnancy and a depressed friend giving more ideas than those receiving the questions about homework and employment. High originality scores were expected because the questions about pregnancy or depression may have been more interesting or important, and thus more motivating. These results are interesting in part because individuals who have experience with depression might be expected to have more ideas and be better able to decide which ideas are worthwhile solutions. Admittedly experience can work two ways, either giving the individual an advantage because he or she has considered similar issues before, or giving the individual a disadvantage in that he or she will be too familiar with the problem to find original solutions. Famil- iarity with a problem tends to inhibit the originality of solutions (Runco, in press-a; Runco & Albert, 1985).

The correlational findings of the present investigation do not imply causality. In fact, suicide and creative problem solving


may be associated primarily because of their associations with a third variable. Impulsivity is one possibility. The SOQ includes an impulsivity scale, and although no significant associations with that particular score were found, it was an attitudinal rather than behavioral index. Other mediating variables may be charac- teristic of the bipolar (affective) disorders. A great deal of research shows the connec- tion between creativity and bipolar I1 and I11 (Bowden, in press; Richards, 1990), and at least for writers and artists with an affective disorder there is a tendency to consider or actually commit suicide (An- dreasen, 1987; Goodwin & Jamison, 1990; Jamison, 1989; Lester, 1990). As Bowden (in press) explained it

because the disorder is generally a chronic, recurrent one, over time repeated episodes are likely to impair the patients’ job competitiveness, social relationships, finances, and self-confidence. . . . initial episodes of an illness may be in response to psychological and environmental stressors. . . .

This suggests that additional variables (e.g., self-confidence) might be brought into predictive equations and included in the model of problem solving and suicide ideation. Future research should also consider qualitative indices of divergent thinking and problem solving (cf. Dudek & Berneche, 1989; Khandwalla, 1993; Or- bach et al., 1990). Perhaps our prediction about flexibility could be better tested with a qualitative index, such as Orbach et al.’s versatility of solutions index. Along the same lines, future research should take the appropriateness of the problems and solutions generated by subjects into account. Earlier we alluded to individuals who give adaptive solutions, and the appropriateness and adaptiveness of solutions is vital for truly creative problem solving (Rothenberg & Hausman, 1976). Creative problem solving relies on originality but not to the exclusion of fit and appropriateness. Truly creative solutions and insights are both original and adaptive. Methods are currently being developed to take the appropriateness of ideas into account (Runco & Charles, 1993).

The work on suicide and the bipolar I1 and I11 disorders helps to justify our use of college students as research subjects - as does the research of Rudd (1989) and Schotte and Clum (1982)-because these specific disorders are widely distributed in the general population and are, according to Bowden (in press) and Richards (1990), subclinical. Indeed, the subclinical population may be the one most in need of accu- rate prediction. Keep in mind, however, that one aspect of the rationale for this study was that findings about suicide ideation and problem solving found in one population might not generalize to others. That deserves repeating because general- izations from the present study (e.g., about problem generation and the attitude that suicide is normal) to other nonclinical, noncollege populations are not warranted.

REFERENCES

Andreasen, N. C. (1987). Creativity and mental illness: Prevalence rates in writers and their first- degree relatives. American Journal of Psychiatry,

Beck, A., Kovacs, M., & Weissman, A. (1979). As- sessment of suicidal intention: The Scale for Sui- cide Ideation. Journal of Consulting and Clinical

Beck, A., Weissman, A., Lester, D., & Trexler, L. (1974). The measurement of pessimism: The Hope- lessness Scale. Journal of Consulting and Clinical

Bowden, C. L. (in press). The relationship of bipolar disorder to creativity. In M. P. Shaw & M. A. Runco (Eds.), Creativity and affect. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Chand, I., & Runco, M. A. (1992). Problem finding skills as components in the creative process. Per sonality and Individual Differences, 14, 155-162.

Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1975). Applied multiple re- gressiodcorrehtion for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cohen, L. M. (1989). A continuum of adaptive c r e ative behaviors. Creativity Research Journal, 2,

Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global measure of perceived stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24, 385-396.

Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Getzels, J. W. (1971). Dis- covery-oriented behavior and the originality of c r e ative products: A study with artists. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 19, 47-52.

Dixon, W., Heppner, P., & Anderson, W. (1991). Problem-solving appraisal, stress, hopelessness,

144,1288-1292.

Psychology, 2,343-352.


169-183.

MRAZ AND RUNCO 47

and suicide ideation in a college population. Jour nal of Consulting Psychology, 38,51-56.

Dobson, C., & Metcalfe, R. (1983). Reliability andva- lidity of the student stress inventory (sixth form version). British Journal of Educational Psychol-

Domino, G. (1988). Attitudes toward suicide among highly creative college students. Creativity Re- search Journal, 1,92-105.

Dudek, S . Z., & Berneche, R. (1989). The creative thinking and ego functioning of children. Creativ- ity Research Journal, 2,64-86.

DZurilla, T. J., & Sheedy, C. F. (1991). Relation b e tween social problem solving ability and subsequent level of psychological stress in college students. Journal of Personality and Social

Flach, F. (1990). Disorders of the pathways involved in the creative process. Creativity Research Jour nal, 3,158-165.

Goodwin, F. K., & Jamison, K. R. (1990). Manic depressive illness. New York Oxford University Press.

Hamilton, S., & Fagot, B. (1988). Chronic stress and coping styles: A comparison of male and female undergraduates. Journal of Personality and Social

Haub, C. V. (1991). Population and population move- ments. Britannica Book of the Year (pp. 278,280- 281). Chicago, I L Britannica.

Jamison, K. (1989). Mood disorders and patterns of creativity in British writers and artists. Psychia-

Khandwalla, P. (1993). An exploratory study of divergent thinking through protocol analysis. Cre- ativity Research Journal, 6,241-260.

Lester, D. (1990). An analysis of poets and novelists who completed suicide. Activ. New. Super, 32,6-11.

McLeavey, B. C., Daly, R. J., Murray, C. M., ORior- dan, J., & Taylor, M. (1987). Interpersonal problem-solving deficits in self-poisoning patients. Sui- cide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 17, 33-49.

Okuda, S. M., Runco, M. A., & Berger, D. E. (1991). Creativity and the finding and solving of real- world problems. Journal of Psychoeducational As- sessment, 9,45-53.

Orbach, I., Bar-Joseph, H., & Dror, N. (1990). Styles of problem solving in suicidal individuals. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 20, 56-64.

Patsiokas, A., Clum, G., & Luscomb, R. (1979). Cogni- tive characteristics of suicide attempters. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 3,478-484.

Prezant, D., & Neimeyer, R. (1988). Cognitive p r e

ogy, 53,121-125.



try, 52,125-134.

dictors of depression and suicide ideation. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 18, 259-264.

Richards, R. (1990). Everyday creativity, eminent creativity, and health Afterview of CRJ special issues on creativity and health. Creativity Research Journal, 3,300-326.

Rothenberg, A., & Hausman, C. (1976). The creativity question. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Rudd, D. (1989). The prevalence of suicide ideation among college students. Suicide and Life- Threatening Behavior, 2,173-183.

Runco, M. A. (1985). Reliability and convergent validity of ideational flexibility as a function of academic achievement. Perceptual and Motor Skills,

Runco, M. A. (1990). Mindfulness and personal control. [Review of Mindfulness.] Imagination, Cogni- tion and Personality, 10, 107-114.

Runco, M. A. (in press-a). Conclusions concerning problem finding, problem solving, and creativity. In M. A. Runco (Ed.). Problem finding, problem solving, and creativity. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Runco, M. A. (in press-b). Creativity and its discon- tents. In M. Shaw & M. A. Runco (Eds.), Creativ- ity and affect. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Runco, M. A. (Ed.). (in press-c). Problem finding, problem solving, and creativity. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

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 Measure- ment, 45,483-501.

Runco, M. A., & Charles, R. E. (1993). Judgments of originality and appropriateness as predictors of creativity. Personality and Individual Differences,

Runco, M. A., Ebersole, P., & Mraz, W. (1991). Self- actualization and creativity. Journal of Social Be- havior and Personality, 6, 161-167.

Runco, M. A., & Okuda, S. M. (1991). The instruc- tional enhancement of the ideational originality and flexibility scores of divergent thinking tests. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5,435-441.

Schotte, D., & Clum, G. (1982). Suicide ideation in a college population: A test of a model. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 5,690-696.

Schotte, D., & Clum, G. (1987). Problem-solving skills in suicidal psychiatric patients. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1,49-54.

U.S. Bureau of Census. (1989). Statistical abstract of the U.S. Washington, DC: US. Government Print- ing Office (annual).

61,1075-1081.

15,537-546.

Documents

Suicide ideation and creative problem solving