Affiliation:
1. Arabian Gulf University , Kingdom of Bahrain
2. University of Georgia , USA
3. University of Northern Colorado , USA
4. Southern Oregon University , USA
Abstract
Abstract
After more than six decades of systematic study of creativity, there is still no agreement regarding components essential to define creativity. Prior studies of implicit and explicit theories have suggested adding criteria to the standard definition of what creativity is; however, an alternative approach is to explore what creativity is not. The current investigation aimed to study both perspectives. The social validation method was employed in Study 1 (an open-ended questionnaire) to identify laypeople’s notions of creativity using content analysis of participant responses (n = 92). Results from Study 1 were used to build a quantitative questionnaire employed in Study 2 (n = 306). Descriptive statistics and Spearman Rank Correlations were used to analyze participant ratings in Study 2, showing consistent agreement that creativity is highly related to and overlapped with Imagination, Artistic Expression, Innovation, Originality, and Invention, while Knowledge, Ability, Unconventional Behavior, Morality, and Insanity were less related to and overlapped with creativity. Both implicit and explicit theories agreed on Originality and Innovation and disagreed on Artistic Expression, Imagination, and Invention. Usefulness received low ratings, although it is considered in all creativity definitions. Morality was not rated to be closely associated with creativity. Detailed findings are discussed with suggestions for future studies.
Subject
Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty,Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous),Visual Arts and Performing Arts,Education,Social Psychology
Reference40 articles.
1. Abdulla, A. M. & Cramond, B. (2017). After six decades of systematic study of creativity: What do teachers need to know about what it is and how it is measured? Roeper Review, 39(1), 9–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2016.1247398
2. Altheide, D. L. (1987). Ethnographic content analysis. Qualitative Sociology, 10(1), 65. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00988269
3. Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. Springer-Verlag.
4. Amabile, T. M. (1990). Within you, without you: Towards a social psychology of creativity, and beyond. In M.A. Runco & R. S. Albert (Eds.), Theories of creativity. Sage.
5. Chan, D. W., & Chan, L-K. (1999). Implicit theories of creativity: Teachers’ perception of student characteristics in Hong Kong. Creativity Research Journal, 12(3), 185–195. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1203_3
Cited by
4 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献