Search

Most standardized educational tests are not intended to assess creativity. Past research in this domain has been largely correlational, examining the associations between creative beliefs or performance and scores on such tests. Hence, the primary aim of the current investigation was to determine the degree to which different metrics of creativity account for performance on standardized academic tests. Specifically, measures of creative performance, potential, self-reports, and beliefs were collected along with personality indicators and academic data (grade point averages, Australian Tertiary Admission Ranking [ATAR] scores) for Australian student participants. Results from a hierarchical multiple regression indicated that various creative potential, ability, and trait measures accounted for 18% of unique variance in ATAR scores over and above the contribution of GPA, higher conscientiousness, and higher introversion. Specifically, significant creativity variables were self-rated scholarly creativity and intellectual risk-taking, independently scored flexibility on a divergent thinking task, and objectively rated originality in generating a math equation. The findings suggest that both convergent and divergent thinking abilities play an important role in traditional academic outcomes. Limitations and suggestions for future research are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article we focus on systematically overlooked forms of creative expression and propose the CASE model to account for them and the reasons why they often go unrecognized. This model points us to four main reasons why creative outcomes can easily remain in the shadows or go unrecognized even if they demonstrate novelty and usefulness to different degrees. These are: lack of capital (C); lack of awareness of being creative or doing creative work (A); lack of spark or of having the original creative idea (S); and lack of exceptionality or the property of visibly standing out from other productions (E). Each one of these is discussed and exemplified given that lacking one or more of the above dimensions significantly decreases the chances of the contributions being considered creative, or even potentially creative, by the outside world or even the creator. We conclude with some reflections on why appreciating shadow creativities can foster personal development as well as increase social justice for the benefit of all. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Creativity self-assessments (CSAs) are frequently used in empirical research. However, they are often chosen for the sake of expediency. If used as outcome variables, there are legitimate concerns with their accuracy or validity. However, CSAs are most valuable when serving other purposes. In this review, I establish a categorization of CSAs based on their primary focus: Activities, Evaluation, Process, and Beliefs. I give a brief description and some examples of each type. Finally, I highlight specific instances of how CSAs can offer information and insights beyond performance-based measures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Do researchers who study imagination, creativity, and innovation (ICI) explain to their audience why this topic is important, and if so, what reasons do they put forward? To answer this question, the present review examined a randomly selected sample of 200 empirical peer-reviewed articles published over the course of 3 years (2009-2012). The sample was stratified to include 50 articles in 4 disciplines (psychology journals, creativity journals, business or industrial/organizational psychology journals, and education journals). Across this sample of articles, ICI were treated as dependent variables most of the time, suggesting that scientists may be more interested in investigating what predicts ICI, rather than what ICI can predict. Approximately a third of articles examined did not explicitly address why researchers should care about ICI. Less than 10% included any type of substantive discussion of the issue. Qualitative analysis highlighted 9 main themes among the explicit reasons provided by researchers for studying ICI. Results varied according to journal types considered. Overall, findings from this review suggest that scientists may often assume that that their readers already share the implicit assumption that ICI constitute inherently valuable traits/behaviors, and thus pass up opportunities to explain why they think that ICI are important to study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The relationship between creativity and intelligence has been explored in many ways, including using the CHC theory's constructs of Fluid Reasoning ( G f ) and Crystallized Knowledge (Gc). Yet the primary CHC broad factor theoretically associated with creativity is considered to be Long-term storage and retrieval (Glr). To test the relationship between Glr and creativity, 116 participants were tested on 4 Glr subtests from the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children-II (Kaufman & Kaufman, 2004), a Gc subtest from the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement - II Brief (Kaufman & Kaufman, 2005), and multiple creativity measures including self-assessments and rated creative performance in drawing and writing. Glr was significantly related to creative drawing, but not creative writing or most self-assessed creativity measures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What influences our perception of art? Past aesthetics research has covered such variables as theme (e.g., positive, negative), style (e.g., surreal, abstract), and level (e.g., artist eminence). Less research has examined the background of the artist. In this study, 314 participants blind to artist type rated paintings by five different groups of artists (outsider artists: average-deviant artists, prison inmates, serial killers, and nonoutsider artists: average-regular artists and eminent creators) on the following three dimensions: warmth, creativity, and likability. "Average-deviant" artists were rated the highest on all three dimensions, and serial killer artists received the lowest ratings on all three dimensions, suggesting that some element of an artist's background may impact how their work is perceived. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What is the role of expertise in evaluating creative products? Novices and experts do not assess creativity similarly, indicating domain-specific knowledge's role in judging creativity. We describe two studies that examined how "quasi-experts" (people who have more experience in a domain than novices but also lack recognized standing as experts) compared with novices and experts in rating creative work. In Study 1, we compared different types of quasi-experts with novices and experts in rating short stories. In Study 2, we compared experts, quasi-experts, and novices in evaluating an engineering product (a mousetrap design). Quasi-experts (regardless of type) seemed to be appropriate raters for short stories, yet results were mixed for the engineer quasi-experts. Some domains may require more expertise than others to properly evaluate creative work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Researchers examine implicit beliefs about creativity to understand what laypeople think. Past work has looked at cultural differences, characteristics associated with creativity, and the positive or negative valence that people feel toward creativity. In this study, we focused on the Four C Model of Creativity (Beghetto & Kaufman, 2007; Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009) to discover if laypeople perceive nuances in different levels of accomplishment. We found that although Pro-c and little-c merged into one factor, Big-C, mini-c, and Not-c (not creative) were distinguishable. Personality (particularly agreeableness and openness) predicted how participants rated different levels of creativity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

If one takes a domain-specific approach to studying creativity, I key question is to determine the most important domains to measure. One approach is to look at common perceptions of creativity. Building on past studies that used self-report questionnaires, this study presents a new instrument, the Kaufman Domains of Creativity Scale. A factor analysis of 2,318 college student responses led to 50 items and 5 broad domains: Self/Everyday, Scholarly, Performance (encompassing writing and music), Mechanicall Scientific, and Artistic. Coefficient alphas and coefficients of congruence were generally strong. Correlations between the 5 creativity domains and the Big Five personality factors were consistent with past research, lending evidence of convergent validity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Two studies explored the relationship between elementary students' creative self-efficacy (CSE) beliefs (i.e., self-judgments of creative ability) and teachers' ratings of students' creativity. In Study 1, elementary students' (N = 595) CSE beliefs in science predicted teachers' ratings of students' creative expression in science, accounting for a significant, but small (3.4%), proportion of variation in teachers' ratings. Results of Study 1 also indicate that students' CSE beliefs tended to decline by grade level and teachers tended to rate females and White students as more creative. In Study 2, elementary students' (N = 306) CSE beliefs in science and math predicted teachers' ratings of creative expression in math and science, again accounting for a significant, but small (2.1% in science; 4.2% in math), proportion of variation in teachers' ratings. Also similar to Study 1, results indicate students' CSE beliefs declined by grade level. Results of Study 2 indicate that students tended to underestimate their creative ability and tended to differentiate between creative ability in science and math (whereas their teachers did not). Implications for creativity research are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Is creativity domain-specific? The authors describe the value of latent class analysis for appraising domain generality, and the authors report two studies that explore the latent class structure of creative accomplishments (using Carson, Peterson, and Higgins's Creative Achievement Questionnaire; n = 749) and creative self-descriptions (using Kaufman and Baer's Creativity Domain Questionnaire; n = 3,534). For creative achievements, clear latent classes were found: the majority of people belonged to an "uncreative" class, and smaller classes were found for visual arts and performing arts. For creative self-descriptions, however, latent classes were not found: people's views of themselves as "creative people" varied quantitatively but not qualitatively. Implications for the assessment and analysis of creativity are considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article the authors argue that a new category of creativity, called "mini-c" creativity, is needed to advance creativity theory and research. Mini-c creativity differs from little-c (everyday) or Big-C (eminent) creativity as it refers to the creative processes involved in the construction of personal knowledge and understanding. The authors discuss how the category of mini-c creativity addresses gaps in current conceptions of creativity, offers researchers a new and important unit of analysis, and helps to better frame the domain question in creativity research. Implications for creativity research are also discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Creative metacognition (CMC) is an understudied component of creative growth. It refers to people's ability to monitor and evaluate their creative functioning. In this study we focus on an important element of CMC, creative metacognitive accuracy: people's ability to recognize and properly assess the creativity of their ideas when solving divergent thinking tasks. More specifically, we explored how creative ability and intelligence interact to explain people's self-ratings of their newly generated ideas' creativity. A large sample of adults (n = 500) completed 3 divergent thinking tasks and immediately after provided general ratings of their responses' creativity. External judges independently rated creativity of all generated responses. Expert-rated creativity was positively linked to participants' creativity self-ratings, yet negatively related to participants' intelligence. More important, creativity and intelligence interacted with each other: self-ratings of creativity corresponded with experts' assessment among more intelligent people, whereas people with lower intelligence overestimated the creativity of their ideas, especially when these ideas were less creative. Thus, a clear effect of metacognitive accuracy was observed among participants with higher intelligence. We discuss the results in the light of potential mechanisms that analytical and creative skills may play for CMC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this study, we investigate ethnic and racial differences in creativity using a large sample collected over a 10-year period in the United States. All sample participants completed the Kaufman Domains of Creativity Scale (K-DOCS)—a self-report measure of creativity across five different domains—as part of earlier research. The large overall sample size resulted in sufficiently large subsamples of four different ethnic and racial groups: European American, African American, Hispanic American, and Asian American, which allowed for robust comparisons across these groups. The results of the study indicate that the five- and nine-factor structures of K-DOCS are stable across different ethnic and racial groups. In addition, although observed mean differences exist across the groups, the size of these differences is small. Furthermore, European Americans did not always show the highest mean on the five factors, indicating that the measure may be useful as a way to reduce ethnic and racial bias in testing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Kaufman Domains of Creativity Scale (K-DOCS) is a self-report, domain-specific measure assessing creativity in 5 domains: Everyday, Scholarly, Performance, Science and the Arts. J. C. Kaufman (2012) provided initial evidence for the K-DOC'S factor structure. However, the factor structure requires replication and the measure has not been validated. The current study examines the factor structure of the K-DOCS and applies the Amusement Park Theoretical hierarchical model as £ framework to establish validation evidence. Adults from Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) (N = 825) and Poland (N = 500) completed the K-DOCS and a measure of the Big Five. The Polish sample also completed other creativity (e.g., CAQ, creative self-beliefs) and noncreativity (e.g., intelligence, dark triad) measures. Confirmatory factor analyses indicated the factor structure of the K-DOCS was reliable. Additionally, we demonstrate convergent and discriminant validity of the 5 K-DOCS factors based on their correlations with domaingeneral predictors of creativity and domain-specific predictors. We also explored the existence of latent profiles and found that the measure was not well represented with a profile structure. The current study demonstrates that the K-DOCS is a reliable and valid measure for assessing domain-specific creativity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Researchers are challenging college admissions to shift practices to become more inclusive and to consider a range of abilities, including creativity. Admissions counselors must examine limited information and then maximize what they learn. How can admissions counselors use existing data to identify creative students? Research suggests that creative individuals tend to be more involved in extracurricular activities and that those involved in creative activities tend to be more involved in extracurricular activities overall. We expected that extracurricular involvement would predict creativity better than traditional admissions factors alone. Participants were 232 applicants to an undergraduate program recruited by the admissions office who completed online supplements. Data on SAT scores, high school rank, and extracurricular involvement were obtained from admissions files. Creativity was measured through a divergent thinking task, a self-assessment, a rated photo caption, and a rated essay about a student's dream project. Involvement in art clubs significantly predicted caption creativity, explaining twice as much variance as traditional factors alone. Arts club membership, but not traditional admissions factors, explained a significant amount of variance in self-reported performance creativity (i.e., writing, acting, music, etc.). Curiously, intensity of participation in academic clubs was negatively related to divergent thinking creativity. These findings demonstrate that extracurricular activities reveal valuable information about applicants' creativity that traditional admission factors do not. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Media entertainment has a tremendous impact on many aspects of life, yet individual preferences for media have been understudied. Following in the footsteps of Rentfrow, Goldberg, and Zilca (2011), we extend the study of entertainment preferences to the domain of creativity while controlling for gender, socioeconomic status, and personality. Our findings are consistent with past work, in that women prefer Communal themes while men prefer Dark, Thrilling, and Cerebral themes and that Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Openness positively predict effects on genres of entertainment while Conscientiousness and Neuroticism negatively predict these same effects. In new findings, a preference for Aesthetic content positively predicted general creativity, effects of the "Highbrow" preference on creativity were higher than that of "Lowbrow" in all domains except Everyday Creativity, and Communal and Aesthetic preferences had positive effects on 4 creativity domains. The clarity of relationship between entertainment preferences and creativity shed light on the profound value media may bring to education and social life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Can creativity be used for evil (or simply bad or unethical) purposes? Much of the past research on this topic has emphasized how creative people are more likely to engage in socially undesirable or morally unethical behavior. Yet how do laypeople perceive this issue? This study presented 626 participants with 4 hypothetical situations and a total of 43 possible actions varying both in malevolence and creativity. A factor analysis of participant ratings of each action's malevolence revealed 5 levels of perceived malevolence (moral killing, legal, immoral/unethical, illegal/nonviolent, and illegal/violent). The perceived creativity of these actions was nonlinear—actions that were morally complex or ambiguous were seen as being more creative. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Malevolent creativity (MC), or intending to inflict harm in original ways, is an aspect of creativity that has received little empirical attention. It reasons that generating malevolently creative products in response to a problem is dependent upon individual differences and environmental factors, especially with regard to the social and emotional content of a particular problem. A personality variable strongly associated with how individuals acknowledge and respond to such social and emotional content is emotional intelligence (EI). Individuals with higher EI often solve problems in cooperative, beneficial, and positive ways, which seems contrary to solving a problem with MC. In addition to testing whether EI is negatively related to MC in general, we analyzed whether that negative relationship would persist even after controlling for cognitive ability and task effects. Those questions were examined across two studies. Results suggest that individuals with lower EI are more likely to respond to different types of problems with increased instances of MC even when the social or emotional content of those problems are factored out. The implications and limitations of these studies, as well as future directions for the study of MC, are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is a growing use of self-report measures of creativity with university students (Snyder, Hammond, Grohman, & Katz-Buonincontro, 2019). Creative self-perceptions, creative self-efficacy, and creative personal identity are common self-report constructs (Karwowski & Kaufman, 2017). The present study sought to determine whether participants differentiate between these constructs in their survey responses and whether there are groups of participants with different patterns of responses. Participants were 826 university students recruited from 2 campuses: 1 in the United States and 1 in the UK. Hierarchical cluster analyses were used to determine the patterns of responses to items, and latent class analyses were used to determine whether there are different groups of participants. Results suggest that participants do not differentiate their responses by type of measure, but rather by domain. Results also suggest different groups of participants, with some groups rating themselves similarly across domains, and other groups differentiating by domain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An introduction is presented in which the editor discusses various reports within the issue on topics including aesthetics of software code, the readers' response on the literary description of rape, and the appreciation of art.

An introduction is presented in which the editor discusses various reports within the issue on topics including the relationship between creativity and admission tests, the association between student perceptions and teacher perceptions, and evaluation of artists' works.

An introduction is presented in which the editor discusses various reports including the use of linguistic analysis in tracing song lyrics, the relationship of personality, social networks, schizotypy and intelligence and the phenomenon of aesthetic chills or piloerection.

An introduction to the journal is presented in which the editors discuss an article on the assessment of Big Five personality by Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, one on the musical preferences using methodologies from the Chamorro-Premuzic study by Thomas Schäfer and Peter Sedlmeier, and a study on the psychology of aesthetics by Dave Miranda and colleagues.

An introduction to the journal is presented in which the editor discusses an article by Ellen Langer, Laura Delizonna, and Michael Pirson on social comparison and artwork creation, the article regarding emotion theories by Paul Silvia, and the comparison of personality types between American and Taiwanese students by Yiling Cheng, Kyung Hee Kim, and Michael Hull.

The article discusses various reports in this issue, including one about the relationship between creativity and mental illness and another about the love and hate of music.

An introduction to the journal is presented in which the editor discusses an article on the Arnheim address of Jerome Singer, a study on the effect of sex in the movies on its critical and financial success by Anemone Cerridwen and Dean K. Simonton, and a case study on brothers Walter and Roberto Burle Marx and their creative trajectories by LeoNora Cohen.

The article introduces various reports published within the issue, including one by Dean Keith Simonton on film success; one by Paul Silvia, James C. Kaufman and Jean Pretz on domain specificity of creativity; and one by Stefano Mastandrea, Gabriella Bartoli and Giuseppe Bove on the psychology of museum visitors.

An introduction to the journal is presented in which the editors discuss reports published within the issue including one on the mad-genius hypothesis of creative individuals, one on distributed creativity and another on creativity among gifted students in Korea.

The article discusses various reports published within the issue, including one by Ronald A. Beghetto on how micromoments between teachers and students affect students' creative potential, another by Thalia Goldstein on childhood precursors of acting talent, and one by Zorana Ivcevic on the degree of terminological clarity in creativity research.

The article discusses various reports published within the issue including one on the linguisitical analysis of the songs of the Beatles and another one on how today's students experience classic films.

The article discusses various reports published within the issue including one by Paul J. Silvia et al on a new subject scoring method that assesses creativity with divergent thinking tasks and another by Vladimir j. Koneč on the link between music and emotion.

This article reviews recent developments in the assessment of creativity using self-report scales. We focus on four new and promising scales: the Creative Achievement Questionnaire, the Biographical Inventory of Creative Behaviors, the revised Creative Behavior Inventory, and the Creative Domain Questionnaire. For each scale, we review evidence for reliability, validity, and structure, and we discuss important methodological features for users to consider. We then present new analyses of each scale based on a large, diverse sample. We evaluate each scale's item-level and scale-level psychometric features, using both classical test theory and item response theory, and we examine how the scales converge. All four scales performed well and covaned highly with each other. Based on the latest generation of tools, self-report creativity assessment is probably much better than creativity researchers think it is. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]