Element contents
There's No Such Thing as Creativity
How Plato and 20th Century Psychology Have Misled Us
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 June 2022
Summary
Most people (including creativity researchers) act as if they believe that creativity is not simply a useful category or label but a real thing with its own essence (just as Plato would argue that an ideal triangle has an essence that is shared with all actual triangles). Most people (including creativity researchers) also believe that there is a set of general creativity-relevant skills that can be applied to most problems in ways that will lead to more creative outcomes. Creativity research now calls these beliefs into question. A domain-general misunderstanding of the nature of creativity-relevant skills and the equally mistaken belief that creativity exists independently of actual creative things and ideas have together hindered creativity theory, research, assessment, and training. A more domain-specific and nominalist understanding of creativity will free creativity researchers to make progress in areas where it is currently stymied.
- Type
- Element
- Information
- Online ISBN: 9781009064637Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication: 07 July 2022
References
Abraham, A. (2012). The neuroscience of creativity: A promising or perilous enterprise? In Alejandre, A. P. (ed.), Creativity and Cognitive Neuroscience (pp. 15–24). Madrid: Fundación Tomás Pascual y Pilar Gómez-Cuétera.Google Scholar
Abraham, A. (2014). Is there an inverted-U relationship between creativity and psychopathology? Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 750: 1–2.Google Scholar
Abraham, A. (2015). Madness and creativity – yes, no or maybe? Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1055: 1–3.Google Scholar
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in Context: Update to the Social Psychology of Creativity. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
Baer, J. (1993). Creativity and Divergent Thinking: A Task-specific Approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Baer, J. (1996). The effects of task-specific divergent-thinking training. Journal of Creative Behavior, 30: 183–187.Google Scholar
Baer, J. (1998). The case for domain specificity in creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 11: 173–177.Google Scholar
Baer, J. (2016). Domain Specificity of Creativity. San Diego, CA: Academic Press/Elsevier.Google Scholar
Barbot, B. & Said‐Metwaly, S. (2021). Is there really a creativity crisis? A critical review and meta‐analytic re‐appraisal. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 55(3): 696–709.Google Scholar
Becker, G. (2001). The association of creativity and psychopathology: Its cultural-historical origins. Creativity Research Journal, 13(1): 45–53.Google Scholar
Cameron, J. & Pierce, W. D. (1994). Reinforcement, reward, and intrinsic motivation: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 64: 363–423.Google Scholar
Churchland, A. K. & Abbott, L. F. (2016). Conceptual and technical advances define a key moment for theoretical neuroscience. Nature Neuroscience, 19(3): 348–349.Google Scholar
Cobb, M. (2020). The Idea of the Brain: The Past and Future of Neuroscience. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Conti, R., Coon, H., & Amabile, T. M. (1996). Evidence to support the componential model of creativity: Secondary analyses of three studies. Creativity Research Journal, 9: 385–389.Google Scholar
Cramond, B., Matthews-Morgan, J., Bandalos, D., & Zuo, L. (2005). A report on the 40-year follow-up of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49: 283–291.Google Scholar
Crockenberg, S. B. (1972). Creativity tests: A boon or boondoggle for education? Review of Educational Research, 42: 27–45.Google Scholar
Dietrich, A. & Kanso, R. (2010). A review of EEG, ERP, and neuroimaging studies of creativity and insight. Psychological Bulletin, 136(5): 822–848.Google Scholar
Dobzhansky, T. (2013). Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. The American Biology Teacher, 75(2): 87–91.Google Scholar
Eisenberger, R. & Shanock, L. (2003). Rewards, intrinsic motivation, and creativity: A case study of conceptual and methodological isolation. Creativity Research Journal, 15: 121–130.Google Scholar
Engber, D. (2016). Everything is crumbling. Slate, 6. www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/cover_story/2016/03/ego_depletion_an_influential_theory_in_psychology_may_have_just_been_debunked.htmlGoogle Scholar
Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1998: 290–309.Google Scholar
Feist, G. J. (1999). The influence of personality on artistic and scientific creativity. In Sternberg, R. J. (ed.), Handbook of Creativity (pp. 273–296). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Feist, G. J. (2004). The evolved fluid specificity of human creative talent. In Sternberg, R. J., Grigorenko, E. L., & Singer, J. L. (eds.), Creativity: From Potential to Realization (pp. 57–82). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Gramsci, A. (2011). Prison Notebooks Volume 2 (vol. 2). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Han, K. S. (2003). Domain specificity of creativity in young children: How quantitative and qualitative data support it. Journal of Creative Behavior, 37: 117–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaufman, J. C. & Baer, J. (2002). I bask in dreams of suicide: Mental illness, poetry, and women. Review of General Psychology, 6: 271–286.Google Scholar
Kaufman, J. C. & Baer, J. (2012). Beyond new and appropriate: Who decides what is creative? Journal of Creative Behavior, 24: 83–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaufman, J. C. & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: The four c model of creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13(1): 1–12.Google Scholar
Kim, K. H. (2011). The creativity crisis: The decrease in creative thinking scores on the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 23: 285–295.Google Scholar
Kim, K. H., Cramond, B., & Bandalos, D. L. (2006). The latent structure and measurement invariance of scores on the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking-Figural. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66: 459–477.Google Scholar
Kim, K. H. (2017). The Torrance tests of creative thinking – figural or verbal: Which one should we use? Creativity. Theories–Research–Applications, 4(2): 302–321.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Moore, G. E. & Baldwin, T. (1993). Principia Ethica. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mullen, B., Johnson, C., & Salas, E. (1991). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: A meta-analytic integration. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 12: 3–23.Google Scholar
Plucker, J. A. (1998). Beware of simple conclusions: The case for the content generality of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 11: 179–182.Google Scholar
Plucker, J. A. (1999). Is the proof in the pudding? Reanalyses of Torrance’s (1958 to present) longitudinal data. Creativity Research Journal, 12(2): 103–114.Google Scholar
Richards, R. L. (1976). A comparison of selected Guilford and Wallach-Kogan creative thinking tests in conjunction with measures of intelligence. Journal of Creative Behavior, 10(3): 151–164.Google Scholar
Robertson, R. (2011). The Enlightenment: The Pursuit of Happiness, 1680–1790. London: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Rose, L. H. & Lin, H. (1984). A meta-analysis of long-term creativity training programs. Journal of Creative Behavior, 18: 11–22.Google Scholar
Runco, M. A. (1989). The creativity of children’s art. Child Study Journal, 19: 177–190.Google Scholar
Runco, M. A. & Acar, S. (2012). Divergent thinking as an indicator of creative potential. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1): 66–75.Google Scholar
Runco, M. A., Millar, G., Acar, S., & Cramond, B. (2010). Torrance tests of creative thinking as predictors of personal and public achievement: A fifty-year follow-up. Creativity Research Journal, 22(4): 361–368.Google Scholar
Ruscio, J., Whitney, D. M., & Amabile, T. M. (1998). Looking inside the fishbowl of creativity: Verbal and behavioral predictors of creative performance. Creativity Research Journal, 11: 243–263.Google Scholar
Sawyer, K. (2012). Explaining Creativity: The Science of Human Innovation (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 51.Google Scholar
Sawyer, R. K. (2015). How to transform schools to foster creativity. Teachers College Record, 118 (4): 1–23. http://keithsawyer.com/publications/CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, G., Leritz, L. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2004). The effectiveness of creativity training: A quantitative review. Creativity Research Journal, 16(4): 361–388.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (1999). Creativity as blind variation and selective retention: Is the creative process Darwinian? Psychological Inquiry, 10: 309–328.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (2007). Specialised expertise or general cognitive processes? In Roberts, M. J. (ed.), Integrating the Mind: Domain General versus Domain Specific Processes in Higher Cognition (p. 351). East Sussex: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (2009). Varieties of (scientific) creativity: A hierarchical model of domain-specific disposition, development, and achievement. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4: 441–452.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simonton, D. K. (2010). So you want to become a creative genius? You must be crazy! In Cropley, D., Kaufmann, J., Cropley, A., & Runco, M. (eds.), The Dark Side of Creativity (pp. 218–234). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Implicit theories of intelligence, creativity, and wisdom. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49: 607–627.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J. (2005). The domain generality versus specificity debate: How should it be posed? In Kaufman, J. C. & Baer, J. (eds.), Creativity Across Domains: Faces of the Muse (pp. 299–306). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Taylor, C. L. (2017). Creativity and mood disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(6): 1040–1076.Google Scholar
Taylor, C. L. & Kaufman, J. C. (2021). Values across creative domains. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 55: 501–516.Google Scholar
Taylor, C. L., McKay, A. S., & Kaufman, J. C. (2017). Creativity and personality: Nuances of domain and mood. In Feist, G. J., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Kaufman, J. C., The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity and Personality Research (pp. 167–186). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Thayer, L. (2021). The gut and brain, inextricably linked. Association for Psychological Science Observer, March/April 2021. www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/gut-brainGoogle Scholar
Wallach, M. A. (1970). Creativity. In Mussen, P. H. (ed.), Carmichael’s Manual of Child Psychology, vol. 1 (pp. 1211–1272). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Wallach, M. A. (1976). Tests tell us little about talent: Although measures of academic skills are widely used to determine access to contested educational opportunities, especially in their upper ranges they lack utility for predicting professional achievement. American Scientist, 64(1): 57–63.Google Scholar
Weinstein, E. C., Clark, Z., DiBartlomomeo, D. J., & Davis, K. (2014). A decline in creativity? It depends on the domain. Creativity Research Journal, 26: 174–184.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (1965). Generally Known as the Blue and Brown Books: Preliminary Studies for the Philosophical Investigations. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
- 11
- Cited by