85 Bunduc (Checheriţă) Ada Tamara Student at the Master Program Pre-primary Education Development Policies and Strategies bunduc.ada@gmail.com The present research aims to see to what extent the impact of grandparents on grandchildren influences their creativity. Moreover, we try to see if there are major differences between the permanent or sporadic relationships between grandparents and grandchildren. Emotional intelligence is a powerful "weapon" in the modern age to educate children, and that's why we wanted to see if it is overwhelmed by the excessive presence of grandparents in the life of grandchildren or by their lack of presence in their lives. For this we have researched many other documents on this topic and we applied a test to grandchildren interpreting results according to some variables. The overall results look gratifying. We also analyze results which directly a ect the two mental processes that we have in mind: creativity and emotional intelligence. ff The impact of grandparents - grandchildren relationships on creativity and emotional intelligence Keywords Intelligence, Creativity, Emotional Intelligence, Grandchildren, Grandparents Abstract 86 1. Review of literature There are many researches based on the relationship between grandparents and grandchildren. Looking at the whole, this relationship is a special and useful one. But there are some issues that cast doubt on the permanent relationships between them. We try to find arguments to affirm or refute whether the permanent relationships between grandparents and grandchildren are beneficial. Do they influence Emotional Intelligence or creativity? Do some of the grandparents' family environment permanently care? A descriptive study of 17 grandparents who cared for their grandchildren over a long period (about one to nine years), even if they lived in their own home, the grandparents said that their lives had changed Orb & Davey, 2005). General feelings are those of continuous stress, energy consumption, the constant need for support from others, and financial difficulties. In view of these frustrations, grandparents see it as a means of educating by punishment - beating. Forthun & Ferrer-Chancy & Falcone (2013) provide material that provides grandparents' information on grandchildren's discipline. Grandparents are generally tempted to apply a beating because of disobedience. Any punishment, ranging from bickering to threatening, does not help grandchildren to understand the wrong behavior, they say. Grandparents should turn to natural and logical consequences. Even if grandparents care for grandchildren are objective: abandonment, death or divorce, they do not provide a friendlier environment for the grandchildren concerned (Orb & Davey, 2005). They tended to be more common and grandparents were to be taught more and more children to grow (Pinson-Millburn & Fabian & Schlossberg & Pyle, 1996) and this proved to be true. There are no significant differences between maternal grandparents and paternal grandparents in their involvement on grandchildren (Smorti & Tschiesner & Farneti, 2012), no matter the age. In the same research there are significant 87 differences in the way activities are carried out. Grandmothers engaged more in linguistic activities and grandfathers in more physical and sports activities. In compressing three British studies, Whing Chan & Boliver (2013) shows that there is a significant association between the social classes of grandparents and their grandchildren. Another area where grandparents leave a strong impression is the spiritual realm (Allen & Oschwald, 2008) where, through prayer, the relationship with Divinity and example gives their grandchildren a Christian perspective. Deprez (2017) points to several roles of grandparents to strengthen the relationship with grandchildren: prayer, stories and narrate, and most importantly, the unique and individual role of grandparents. Their involvement outside the family life of children. In various researches we have tried to observe whether grandparents have an equally strong influence and courage on creativity or emotional intelligence. One of the tests commonly used in measuring creativity is the Torrence Test. Golu F. (2009) describes the creative thinking test, Torrance as a figurative one that can be applied between ages 6-18. It is based on the concepts of creative thinking that the examiner needs to master: the originality, fluidity, flexibility and elaboration. There may be many variables that show significant differences in their application. The most common are gender differentiation. These have been sustained since the 1990s. Advanced research in this area has supported the existence of gender differences at cognitive level (Gurian 2001). Early, a synthesis of all case studies where Maccoby & Jacklin (1947) found three cognitive abilities with significant differences between male and female genes: verbal abilities, mathematical and visual-space abilities. There are also many researchers who focus on the links between creativity and student activity. The test mentioned above was used in one of the researches alongside the "Test of Early 88 Mathematics Ability" on a sample of 80 children aged six years in the city of Ankara. Research (Baran & Erdogan & Çakmak, 2011) sought to validate the relationship between creativity and mathematical ability that turned out to be null. On the other hand, children's creativity scores differ significantly in sex. The same test (Torrance) was applied to a sample of 60 children aged between five and seven years in the city of Bucharest, but there are no statistically significant differences depending on the sex of preschoolers (personal research in paper license, 2016). There were differences in the scores obtained according to the occupation of the parents and the type of family from which the children who were subjected to the test. There is a cultural difference in these two examples. A nationwide study in the Republic of Korea (Kyung-Hwa, 2005) with a sample of approximately 1,000 children aged four to five years is conducting a research where the correlation between creative thinking and personality is observed. Kyunk demonstrates that, depending on the sex of students, there are significant differences in language and arts at the level of creative thinking. Girls get a better percentage than boys from a statistical point of view. However, there are no significant differences in achieving the creative personality results. However, there have been significant differences in age; both in creative thinking and in personality. Chan (2005) publishes a study of a sample of over 200 talented pupils between fifth and high school (divided into two categories - around 9 years and around 18), where it compares creativity, perception of family and emotional intelligence through anonymous questionnaires. Significant differences were observed in their perception of the family. Students in the low age category feel more support from the family than other students. Emotional intelligence, on the other hand, achieved similar results in both age groups. This, in turn, plays a very important role in personal development and academic growth. Later, at the age of 89 adolescence, it is demonstrated that women dominate to a greater extent emotion than men (Fid a& Ghaffar & Zaman & Satti, 2018). Research has dismantled over the limit that there are close ties between grandparents and grandchildren. These can be useful or can destroy both groups of people both grandparents and grandchildren. 2. Methodology This research is descriptive, combining both qualitative and quantitative elements. The qualitative elements will have the role of directing and directing the meaning of the quantitative elements. During the process of collecting, analyzing and interpreting data, both analysis and evaluation criticisms will be presented. Objectives This research aims to observe how big the influence of grandparents at grandchildren on cognitive thinking is. 1. Observing the grandchild-grandparent relationship and her influence on creativity. 2. Studying the grandparent - grandchild relationship and her influence on Emotional Intelligence. Hypotheses 1. There are statistically significant differences in the scores obtained in the creativity test, depending on the sex of preschoolers. 2. There are statistically significant differences in the scores obtained in the creativity test based on the number of brothers. 3. There are statistically significant differences in the scores obtained in the creativity test by type of family. 90 4. There are statistically significant differences in the scores obtained in the creativity test based on the presence of grandparents. Variables The gender, the number of brothers, the type of family and the presence of grandparents are the variables that are considered in this research in obtaining the scores for the creativity test. Methods We applied the Torrance Creativity Test. It is based on the concepts of creative thinking that must be very well mastered by the examiner with the following notions: 1. Originality - indicates the integration of various elements into the "same perceptual field", the ability to produce ideas with meanings different from those in the usual sense; 2. Fluidity - the ease and speed of association between images, the ability to produce many words and ideas; 3. Flexibility - Reorganizing ideas based on emerging situations, the ability to produce different categories of ideas, changing one category with another using images or words, the ability to use different strategies; 4. Development - concrete realization of the innovative, original idea, the ability to combine and transform the data. The Torrance test, in his figural activity, comprises four activities: Task I - eight figures are represented, and the child's task is to imagine as many things as the figures can represent. Task II - There is a list of pairs of words for which there are as many as possible resemblances. The children also received pictures suggestive of those pairs. Task III - Interpretations and meanings for schematic drawings. 91 Task V - In the first part of the sample, the child will list all the round objects he thinks of and in the second part all the objects that produce noise. For each party he has 3 minutes of thinking. This test allows the metering of certain creative features that can provide us with information about creative potential. A second method used in conducting research is the Questionnaire Survey. This plays a rather important role given the collected data underlying evidence for children later. With this method, parents’ and grandparents' involvement in the child's life will be assessed, the date on parental occupation and their monthly income, the type of family they are born and the number of brothers. Tests Statistic We applied Test t for a Sample or One-Sample T Test in our research to track the comparison of two independent samples. Check it out if there is a significant difference between the average value per sample and specified a priori by the researcher. And we applied Anova One-Way to represent the testing of the differences between the media of three or more independent groups. Population The batch on which we applied the creativity test consists of 61 children aged between seven and ten years old from the town of Pantelimon, Romania. 3. Results In this study conducted with children in primary classes, a significant difference was found on the creativity scores regarding the presence of grandparents, we will come back with details, and no significant gender differences. 92 Based on the results obtained, it was found that there are no statistically significant differences depending on the gender variable in terms of creativity [F (1,60) = 0,059, p > 0,05] (Table 1). Depending on the type of family, significant scores were recorded in the total scores of items two and five and the total final scores. Based on the results obtained, it was found that there are statistically significant differences according to the type of family variable in terms of creativity [ F (1,60) = 4,453, p < 0,05] (Table 2). To verify the maintenance of the three types of families if there are significant differences we applied the Bonferroni Post Hoc t. The results revealed the existence of significant differences between the type of married families and the type of families living in concubinage - Bonferroni = 12,111, p < 0,05, r = 0,33 (Table 3). The differences on brethren appear in two of the items of the proposed test for research. Based on the results obtained, it was found that there are statistically differences according to the brethren variable in terms of creativity [ (1,60) = 3,709, p < 0,05 (table 4). To verify the maintenance of the three types of category of brethren if there are significant differences, we applied the Bonferroni Post Hoc t. The results revealed the existence of significant differences between child alone in family and child with one brother in family - Bonferroni = 0,667 p < 0,05, r = 0,03 (Table 5). And not in the last round, as I have already mentioned, we have returned to the influence of grandparents in the cognitive thinking of children. In this case, almost all the items have p < 0,05 and curiously even p < 0,01. Based on the results obtained, we have statistically significant differences to the influence of grandparents (Table 6). To the variable "grandparents" most items that have p 0,05. Table 2 Anova Results by Type of Family ANOVA Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. p2.tot Between Groups 220,387 2 110,194 4,593 ,014 Within Groups 1391,613 58 23,993 Total 1612,000 60 p5.tot Between Groups 69,272 2 34,636 3,454 ,038 Within Groups 581,581 58 10,027 Total 650,852 60 TOTAL Between Groups 1416,018 2 708,009 4,453 ,016 Within Groups 9222,540 58 159,009 Total 10638,557 60 * p<0,05. TOTAL Between Groups 10,179 1 10,179 ,057 ,813 Within Groups 10628,378 59 180,142 Total 10638,557 60 100 Table 3 Bonferroni Post Hoc t – Type of Family TOTAL married Divorced 9,159 5,123 ,237 Concubinage 12,111* 4,604 ,033 * p <0,05. Table 4 Anova Results by Brethren p1.it6 Between Groups 4,201 2 2,100 3,709 ,031 Within Groups 32,848 58 ,566 Total 37,049 60 p1.it8 Between Groups 2,701 2 1,350 3,324 ,043 Within Groups 23,562 58 ,406 Total 26,262 60 * p <0,05. Table 5 Bonferroni Post Hoc t –Brethren p1.it6 single 1 brother ,667* ,257 ,036 ,03 2 brothers ,727 ,321 ,082 -,06 1 brother single -,667* ,257 ,036 -1,30 2 brothers ,061 ,257 1,000 -,57 2 brothers single -,727 ,321 ,082 -1,52 1 brother -,061 ,257 1,000 -,69 * p <0,05. 101 Table 6 Anova Results by Grandparents ANOVA Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. p1.it 1 Between Groups 9,451 3 3,150 3,765 ,016 Within Groups 47,696 57 ,837 Total 57,148 60 p1.it 2 Between Groups 7,318 3 2,439 5,859 ,001 Within Groups 23,731 57 ,416 Total 31,049 60 p1.it 3 Between Groups 6,860 3 2,287 4,463 ,007 Within Groups 29,205 57 ,512 Total 36,066 60 p1.it 5 Between Groups 7,722 3 2,574 3,930 ,013 Within Groups 37,328 57 ,655 Total 45,049 60 p1.it 6 Between Groups 5,144 3 1,715 3,064 ,035 102 Within Groups 31,905 57 ,560 Total 37,049 60 p1.it 8 Between Groups 3,384 3 1,128 2,810 ,047 Within Groups 22,878 57 ,401 Total 26,262 60 p1.t ot Between Groups 321,959 3 107,320 3,940 ,013 Within Groups 1552,729 57 27,241 Total 1874,689 60 p2.it 1 Between Groups 12,084 3 4,028 8,881 ,000 Within Groups 25,851 57 ,454 Total 37,934 60 p2.it 2 Between Groups 13,542 3 4,514 11,35 8 ,000 Within Groups 22,655 57 ,397 Total 36,197 60 p2.it 3 Between Groups 12,752 3 4,251 10,96 2 ,000 Within Groups 22,101 57 ,388 Total 34,852 60 p2.it 4 Between Groups 7,521 3 2,507 8,813 ,000 103 Within Groups 16,216 57 ,284 Total 23,738 60 p2.it 5 Between Groups 7,571 3 2,524 7,834 ,000 Within Groups 18,363 57 ,322 Total 25,934 60 p2.it 6 Between Groups 8,498 3 2,833 7,894 ,000 Within Groups 20,453 57 ,359 Total 28,951 60 p2.it 7 Between Groups 15,135 3 5,045 13,82 6 ,000 Within Groups 20,799 57 ,365 Total 35,934 60 p2.it 8 Between Groups 12,478 3 4,159 11,01 6 ,000 Within Groups 21,522 57 ,378 Total 34,000 60 p2.t ot p5.it. 1 Between Groups 690,707 3 230,236 14,24 5 ,000 Within Groups 921,293 57 16,163 Total 1612,000 60 Between Groups 66,883 3 22,294 11,68 1 ,000 104 p5.it 2 p5.t ot TOT AL Within Groups 108,789 57 1,909 Total 175,672 60 Between Groups 42,045 3 14,015 3,709 ,017 Within Groups 215,365 57 3,778 Total 257,410 60 Between Groups 213,803 3 71,268 9,295 ,000 Within Groups 437,049 57 7,668 Total 650,852 60 Between Groups 4444,101 3 1481,367 13,63 1 ,000 Within Groups 6194,456 57 108,675 Total 10638,55 7 60 * p <0,05. ** p < 0,01 105 Table 7 Bonferroni Post Hoc t –Grandparents TOTAL Holidays Frequently 14105 3,146 ,000 5,50 22,71 Permanent 20.333 3,638 ,000 10,39 30,28 Never .000 5,599 1,000 -15,30 15,30 Frequently Holidays -14,105 3,146 ,000 -22,71 -5,50 Permanent 6,228 3,844 ,664 -4,28 16,74 Never -14,105 5,735 ,102 -29,78 1,57 Permanent Holidays -20,333 3,638 ,000 -30,28 -10,39 Frequently -6,228 3,844 ,664 -16,74 4,28 Never -20.333 6,019 ,008 -36,79 -3,88 Never Holidays -000 5,599 1,000 -15,30 15,30 Frequently 14,104 5,735 ,102 -1,57 29,78 Permanent 20.333 6,019 ,008 3,88 36,79 * p <0,05. ** p < 0,01