What were the key findings of George Land's 1968 creativity study?

1. What Land actually tested — a NASA‑style divergent thinking assessment

Land adapted a creativity test he’d built for NASA, aimed at measuring divergent thinking: the ability to generate multiple, original solutions to open problems. Reporters and summaries say he applied that same Creative Thinking Assessment to children starting in 1968 to track how scores changed with age ^{[6] [7]}. This framing matters because the test targets a particular cognitive skill — divergent thinking — not a full catalog of what psychologists call “creativity.” ^[6]

2. The headline numbers that spread widely

Popular accounts repeat striking figures: roughly 98% of 4–5‑year‑olds scored at a “creative genius” level on the test, with the proportion falling to about 30% by age 10, about 12% by age 15, and roughly 2% among adults ^{[1] [2]}. These numbers have become shorthand in many articles and talks to argue that schools and culture erode natural creativity ^{[8] [9]}.

3. Land’s key interpretation: non‑creative behavior is learned

Land’s takeaway — quoted repeatedly in his own talks and secondary sources — was that non‑creative behavior is learned, implying that societal and educational processes suppress children’s innate divergent thinking as they age ^{[4] [7]}. He and collaborator Beth Jarman expanded these ideas in later books and talks, urging education and organizations to foster divergent, rather than purely convergent, thinking ^{[7] [8]}.

4. What available sources do not settle: methods, labels and sample claims

Secondary reporting disagrees or is unclear about some specifics. Sources vary between 1,600 and 16,000 children in summaries, and many pieces present the “creative genius” label without showing the original scoring thresholds or psychometric details ^{[3] [7]}. Critical analyses note that the exact definitions, cutoffs and representativeness of the samples are not reproduced in popular summaries, so the technical basis for the dramatic percentages is not fully documented in these sources (p1_s6; ^[11] not summarized).

5. Scholarly and critical context: contested generalizations

Some commentators accept Land’s pattern as persuasive evidence that typical schooling reduces divergent thinking and call for educational reform ^{[2] [10]}. Other analysts caution that later creativity research and meta‑analyses complicate the picture — some studies find creativity increases into adulthood before declining — and argue Land’s formulations have been simplified into an internet meme ^{[5] [3]}. Critics specifically challenge the leap from a narrow divergent‑thinking test to broad claims about “creative genius” across populations ^[5].

6. Practical takeaways and open questions

If you accept Land’s central finding as reported, the policy implication is straightforward: encourage environments that value divergent idea generation and reduce premature convergent judgment in classrooms and workplaces ^{[7] [8]}. But available sources also show significant gaps in methodological transparency and contested interpretations, so further scrutiny of original instruments, sampling and scoring would be necessary before treating the headline percentages as definitive scientific fact ^{[5] [11]}.

7. How to read popular claims going forward

When you see the “98% of five‑year‑olds are creative geniuses” line, understand it condenses Land’s divergent‑thinking test result and his interpretive claim that creativity declines with age — but it may overstate the certainty and precision implied by the numbers because published summaries and later commentary differ on details and sample description ^{[1] [5]}. For stronger conclusions, consult original test documentation or peer‑reviewed replications; available sources do not present a full methodological dossier ^[11].