創造力是現代社會不可或缺的關鍵能力，各國紛紛透過教育計畫與教育改革提升學生的創造力，可見創造力的培養是全世界共同的目標，而如何營造適合創造力發展的環境成為一個重要議題。過去研究針對家庭環境與創造力之間的關係有兩種不同的論點，一種認為支持、溫暖、安全並積極給予鼓勵的家庭環境有助於孩子的創造力發展；而另一種則認為生活中的困境能夠刺激孩子的創造力且培養克服困難、解決問題的能力。據此，本研究旨在探討家庭複合性與創造力間的關係，並以心流經驗為中介變項進一步探討其具體機制。本研究採問卷調查法，抽取臺灣北、中、南地區12所國小519位五、六年級學生作為參與者。研究工具採用新編創造思考測驗－語文創造思考測驗、心流經驗狀態量表、家庭複合性量表和心流經驗傾向量表。研究結果發現，心流經驗傾向對複合型家庭與創造力表現之影響具有顯著中介效果；心流經驗狀態對複合型家庭與創造力表現之影響具有顯著中介效果。進一步使用序列中介分析進行探討，發現心流經驗在複合型家庭影響創造力表現的中介路徑為:複合型家庭先經心流經驗傾向再經心流經驗狀態至創造力，意指複合型家庭有助於培養孩子的心流經驗傾向，使其更容易進入心流經驗狀態，進而有更好的創造力表現。最後依據研究結果進行討論並對未來研究提出建議。

Creativity is an indispensable key capability for modern society. Countries all over the world have been trying to increased students’ creativity through educational programs and educational reforms. It is obvious that the cultivation of creativity is the common goal of the world. Thus, how to create an environment that is suitable for the development of creativity has become an important issue. In past researches, there are two different arguments for the relationship between family environment and creativity. One of the argument is that it will help children’s creativity to develop if the family environment is supportive, warm, safe, and actively encouraging; The other argument is that the dilemmas in life can stimulate children's creativity and help them to develop the ability to overcome difficulties and solve problems. Based on this, this study aims to explore the relationship between family complexity and creativity. And further, explore its specific mechanism by using the experience of flow as an intervening variable. The method of this study is a questionnaire survey, extracting 519 fifth and sixth-grade students from 12 elementary schools from North, middle and South Taiwan, and using new creative thinking test (language creation thinking test), Short Flow Scale, Complex Family Questionnaire, and Short Dispositional Flow Scale. The study shows that the dispositional flow has a significant mediating influence on the effects of family complexity on creativity performance; The flow state has a significant mediating influence on the effects of family complexity on creativity performance. Further using sequence mediation analysis, we found that the mediation path of Flow in how family complexity affecting creativity performance is: family complexity to dispositional flow to flow state to creativity. It means that family complexity helps to develop children’s dispositional flow, make it easier for them to enter the flow state, and thus, to have better creativity performance. Finally, based on the research results, we will discuss and make recommendations for future research.

一、中文部分
王舜萱（2007）。創造力心流經驗量表之發展及其效度之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立彰化師範大學，彰化縣。
王梓涵（2008）。工作要求資源模式對員工創造力的影響：以創造力心流經驗為中介變項（未出版之碩士論文）。國立彰化師範大學，彰化縣。
方勤華（2009）。皮亞傑認知發展理論及其對數學教學的啟示。周口師範學院學報，26(5)，154-156。
任純慧、陳學志、練竑初、卓淑玲（2004）。創造力測量的輔助工具：中文遠距聯想量表的發展。應用心理研究，（21），195-217。
任俊（2006）。積極心理學。上海市:上海教育。
任俊、施靜、馬甜語 （2009）。Flow研究概述。心理科學進展，（1），210-217。
沈姍姍（2000）。國際比較教育學。新北市:正中。
吳靜吉、陳甫彥、郭俊賢、林偉文、劉士豪、陳玉樺（1998）。新編創造思考測驗研究第二年期末報告。教育部訓統委員會。
吳靜吉（2001）。創造力教育白皮書。臺北市:教育部。
李德高（1992）。創造心理學。臺北市:五南。
李慧賢（1996）。原住民學生創造力發展及其相關因素之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立政治大學，臺北市。
林逸媛（1991）。家庭環境與子女創造性之相關研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立政治大學，臺北市。
林佩芝（譯）（1997）。創造心靈（原作者:Howard Gardner）。臺北市:牛頓。
林偉文（2006）。樂在其中的創意教師:國民中小學教師教學樂福經驗與創意教學之關係。國立臺北教育大學學報，19（2），111-128。
林義涵、蔡碩穎（2012）。淺談心流經驗及其與過度激動特質、創造力之關係。特教論壇，（12），13-34。
侯雅齡（2009）。幼兒資優特質與科學創造力之關係：心流經驗之中介效果。特殊教育研究學刊，34（2），101-118。
姜尚文（2017）。以內在動機為中介變項探究家庭複合性結構對創造力之影響-以淡江大學大一學生為例（未出版之碩士論文）。淡江大學，臺北市。
張景煥、李建全、鄭雪梅、張舜、劉桂榮（2014）。父母教養方式對初中生創造思維的影響:自我概念的中介作用。心理與行為研究，12（2），145-150。
陳昭儀（1991）。二十位傑出發明家的生涯路。臺北市:心理。
陳昭儀（2000）。傑出理化科學家之人格特質與創造歷程之研究。師大學報:科學教育類，45（1），27-45。
陳龍安（2004）。創造思考教學的理論與實際。臺北市:心理。
教育部（2014）。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要。臺北市:教育部。
曾建銘（2015）。21世紀評量的發展趨勢。國家教育研究院教育脈動電子期刊，（1）， 1-7。
葉玉珠（2005）。影響國小學童科技創意發展的因素之量表發展。師大學報:科學教育類，50（2），29-54。
詹禹志（2004）。臺灣發明家的內在動機、思考取向及環境機會-演化論的觀點。國立政治大學「教育心理研究」，27（4），775-806。
詹禹志（2005）。台灣地區國小高年級兒童的創意經驗及家庭因素。國立政治大學「教育心理研究」，28（4），591-615。
詹禹志、陳玉樺（2011）。發揮想像力共創臺灣未來-教育系統能扮演的角色。教育資料與研究雙月刊，100，23-52。
蔣國英（譯）（2007）。創意心理學（原作者: Todd Lubart）。臺北市:遠流。
蔡正信（2009）。高屏地區國中美術班學生心流經驗與創造力之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立屏東教育大學，屏東縣。
劉家瑜（2010）。國小教師原生家庭類型、教學風格與其創意教學行為之關係研究－複合理論觀點（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺北教育大學，臺北市。
鄭婷文（2010）。國小高年級學生家庭複合性與創造力之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺北教育大學，臺北市。
聶喬齡（2000）。流暢狀態量表之信度與效度初步分析。國立體育學院論叢，11　（1），247-260。
籃文彬、游森期（2014）。大學生正負向完美主義、心流傾向與心理幸福感之結構方程模式分析。臺中教育大學學報：數理科技類，28（2），25-50。
二、英文部分
Albert, R. S. (1980). Family positions and the attainment of eminence: A study of special positions and special family experiences. Gifted Child Quarterly,24(2),87-95.
Amabile, T. M. (1985). Motivation and creativity: Effects of motivational orientation on creative writers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 393-399.
Amabile, T. M. (1993). Motivation synergy: Toward new Conceptualizations of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in the workplace. Human Resource Management Review, 3(3), 185-201.
Amabile, T. M. (1997). Entrepreneurial creativational synergy. Journal of Creativity Behavior. 31(1), 18-26.
Amabile, T. M. (1998). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10, 123-67.
Ainsworth, M. D. S., & Bell, S. M. (1973). Attachment, exploration, and separation: Illustrated by the behavior of one-year-olds in a strange situation. Child Development, 41,49-67.
Crim, C. (2006). Raising the creative child. Parenting for High Potential, 26-29. Retrieved from ProQuest Education Journals database.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988a). Society, culture, and person: A systems view of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (ED), The nature of creativity (pp. 15-35). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988b). The flow experience and its significance for human psychology. In M. Csikszentmihalyi, & I. S. Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.), Optimal experience: Psychological studies of flow in consciousness (pp. 15-35). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper and Row.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1993). The evolving self: A psychology for the third millennium (pp. 149-174). New York: Harper Collins.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity. New York: Harper Collins.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Finding flow: The psychology of engagement with everyday life. New York: Basic.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Implications of a systems perspective for the study ofcreativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 313-335). New York: Cambridge University.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., Abuhamdeh, S., & Nakamura, J. (2005). Flow. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 598-607). New York: Guildford Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Csikszentmihalyi, I. (1988). Introduction to part IV. In M. Csikszentmihalyi & I. Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.), Optimal experience: Psychological study of flow in conscious (pp. 251-265). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. & Getzels, J. W. (1988). Creativity and problem finding. In Harley, F. & Neperud, R.W. (Eds), The Foundations of aesthetics, art, and arteducation (pp. 91-106). NY: Praeger.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & LeFevre, J. (1989). Optimal experience in work and leisure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(5), 815-822.
Dellas, M., & Gaier, E. L. (1970). Identification of creativity: The individual. Psychological Bulletin, 73(1), 55-73.
Feist, G. J. (1999). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(4), 290-309.
Friedman, W. J. (1990). About time: Inventing the fourth dimension. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Feist, G. J., & Barron, F. X. (2003). Predicting creativity from early to late adulthood: Intellect, potential, and personality. Journal of Research in Personality ,37(2) , 62 - 88.
Fearon, D. D., Copeland, D., & Saxon, T. F. (2013). The relationship between parenting styles and creativity in a sample of Jamaican children. Creativity Research Journal, 25(1), 119-128.
Feldhusen, J. F., & Goh, B. E. (1995). Assessing and assessing creativity: A integrative review of theory. Creativity Research Journal, 8(3), 231-247.
Gardner, H. (1993). Creating minds: an anotomy of creativity seen through the lives of, Freud, Einstein, Picasso, Stravinsky, Eliot, Graham and Gandhi. New York, NY : Basic.
Harrington, D. M., Block, J., & Block, J. H. (1987). Testing aspects of Carl Rogers’s theory of creative environments: Child-rearing antecedents of creative potential in young adolescents. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(4), 851-856.
Jackson, S., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Flow in sports: The keys to optimal experiences and performances. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Jackson, S. A., Kimiecik, J. C., Ford, S., & Marsh, H. W. (1998). Psychological correlates of flow in sport. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 20(4), 358-378.
Jackson, S. A., Martin, A. J. & Eklund, R. C. (2008). Long and short measures of flow: The construct validity of the FSS-2, DFS-2, and new brief counterparts. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 30(5), 561-587.
Kegan, R. (1982). The evolving self. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kemple, K. M., & Nissenberg, S. A. (2000). Nurturing creativity in early childhood education: Families are part of it. Early Childhood Education Journal, 28(1), 67-71.
Kawabata, M., Mallett, C. J. & Jackson, S. A. (2008) The flow State Scale-2 and Dispositional Flow Scale-2: examination of factorial validity and reliability for Japanese adults. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 9(4), 465-485.
Lubart, T. I. (2003). In search of creative Intelligence, in R. J. Sternberg, J. Lautrey, &T. I. Lubart (eds.), Models of intelligence: International prospectives (p.279-292). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
Lin, C. Y. & Cho, S. (2011). Predicting creative problem- solving in math from a dynamic system model of creative problem solving ability. Creativity Research Journal, 23, 255-261.
Lubart, T. I., & Lautrey, J. (1998). Family environment and creativity, Paper presented at the XV^th Biennal Meetings of the International Society for the Study of Behavioral Development, Berne, Suisse.
Lim, S. & Smith, J., (2008). The structural relationships of parenting style, creative personality, and loneliness. Creativity research journal, 20(4), 412-419.
McCrae, R. R. (1987). Creativity, divergent thinking, and openness to experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 1258-1265.
Mednick, S. A. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 44(2), 220-232.
Mattews, G., Deary, I. J., & Whiteman, M. C. (2003). Personality traits, 2nd ed. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Massimini, F., & Carli, M. (1988). The systematic assessment of flow in daily experience. In M. Csikszentmihalyi & I. Csikszentrnihalyi (Eds.), Optimal
experience: Psychological studies of flow in consciousness (pp. 266-287). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2002). The concept of Flow. In C. R. Snyder, S. J. Lopez (Eds.), The handbook of positive psychology (pp. 89–103). New York: Oxford Press.
Nakamura J., & Csikszentmihalyi M. (2009). Flow theory and research. In S. J. Lopez & C. R.Snyder (Eds.), Oxford handbook of positive psychology (pp. 195-206). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Ochse, R. (1990). Before the gate of excellence: The determinants of creative genius, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Perkins, D. N. (1988). Creativity and the quest of mechanism. In R. J. Sternberg and E. E. Smith (Eds.), The Psychology of human thought, 309-366. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Piaget, J. (1972). The principles of genetic epistemology. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Rathunde, K. (1988). Optimal experience and the family context. In M. Csikszentmihalyi & I. S. Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.), Optimal experience: Psychological studies of flow in consciousness (pp. 342-363). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Rathunde, K. (1989). Family context and optimal experience in the development of talent. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University oF Chicago.
Rathunde, K. (1996). Family context and talented adolescents’optimal experience in school-related activities. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 6, 605-628.
Rathunde, K. (2001). Family context and the development of undivided interest: A longitudinal study of family support and challenge and adolescents’ quality of experience. Applied Developmental Science, 5(3), 158-171.
Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. The Phi Delta Kappan, 42(7), 305-310.
Rogers, C. R. (1954). Toward a theory of creativity. ETC: A Review of General Semantics, 11, 249-260.
Rossman, J. (1931). The psychology of the inventor, Washington DC: Inventors Publishing Company.
Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Authentic happiness. New York: Free press.
Simonton, D. K. (1984). Genius, creativity, and leadership. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
Sloane, K. D. (1985). Home influences on talent development. In B. S. Bloom (Ed). Developing Talent in Young People, 439-476. New York: Ballantine Books.
Sternberg, R. J. (2006). The nature of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 18(1), 87-98.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1995). Defying the crowd-Cultivating creativity in a culture of conformity. New York: The Free Press.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1996). Investing in creativity. American Psychologist. 51(7), 677-688.
Trusty, J. (1998). Family influence on educational expectations of late adolescents. The Journal of Educational Research, 91(5), 260-270.
Wallas, G. (1926). The art of thought. New York: Harcourt, Brace.
Webster, J., Trevino, L. K., & Ryan, L. (1993). The Dimensionality and Correlates of Flow in Human Computer Interactions. Computers in Human Behavior, 9(4), Winter, 411-426.
Wright, C. & Wright, S. (1986). A conceptual framework for examining the family’s influence on creativity. Family Perspective, 20(2), 127–136.
Zenasni, F., & Lubart, T. I. (2001). Adaptation française d’une épreuve de tolérance à l’ambiguïté. Revue Européenne de Psychologie Appliquée, 51 (1-2), 3-12.