Browse

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 199 items for :

  • Development Psychology x
  • Applied Psychology x
Clear All
Open access

Robert J. Sternberg

Abstract

Tests of creativity can meaningfully predict academic and other outcomes in schooling, over and above the prediction provided by standardized tests. However, for such prediction to occur, the tests must measure creativity in a meaningful way and success in school must in some way be linked to creative performance. We should change our tests and schooling to require the creativity that is so important for a world in which rapid change is the norm rather than the exception.

Open access

Agata Groyecka

Abstract

This commentary attempts to address the question of “Why creativity matters?” from the perspective of social psychology, by pointing out processes, which promote creativity while diminishing prejudices. I argue that through enhancing creativity, stereotyping can be reduced which can translate to the further improvement of intergroup relations. The common correlates of low prejudices and creativity supporting this hypothesis, are presented in this paper and comprise: (1) cognitive flexibility, (2) openness to experience and (3) perspective taking. Further, I invoke the existing literature regarding the link between schema-inconsistencies and creativity, which highlights the interrelatedness of these processes, but views creativity as an outcome, rather than a tool for social change. The assumed relationship can be seen as an opening to numerous future research paths, as it can give rise to various detailed questions from the points of view of basic and applied psychology.

Open access

James C. Kaufman

Abstract

There were four broad takeaways from the commentaries by the distinguished contributors. First, there was a caution on focusing too much on the positive outcomes. Second, there were several important considerations noted that can enrich the discussion. Third, people made a strong case for revisiting old outcomes with new methods and theories. Finally, there were suggestions for “new” positive outcomes that creativity may predict. I build on these and my own thoughts to offer an outline to cover a (hopefully expandable) list of potential outcomes. I end with a call for open commentaries to be considered for a future special section in this journal.

Open access

Emanuel Jauk and Natia Sordia

Abstract

Kaufman (2018) calls for a research agenda on outcomes of creativity. Despite its many conceivable positive consequences, we focus on narcissism as a potentially less socially desirable outcome of creative accomplishment in this commentary. Evidence from cross-sectional studies suggests a systematic link between different indicators of creativity and narcissism. We argue that - irrespective of methodological challenges associated with this research - it seems indeed plausible that creativity is associated with narcissism. The link is presumably strongest in individuals who engage in creativity for recognition motives. Narcissistic strivings might ignite creative endeavors, and positive social feedback for creative accomplishments might fuel narcissism. While more research needs to be done to understand the causal nature of the effects, the available evidence points to narcissism as a socially undesirable aspect of creativity which is not commonly discussed.

Open access

Baptiste Barbot

Abstract

In this brief commentary to Kaufman’s call for a “new agenda for positive outcomes” of creativity research, I emphasize how the broad construct of “identity” qualifies as such an outcome. While doing so, I challenge the issue of directionality (predictor vs. outcome) of creativity in relation to relevant correlates by outlining the influence of epistemological position and publication bias in directional interpretations of correlational findings. Through illustrations of various levels of relationships between creativity and identity, I also urge creativity researchers to be more explicit regarding how “generic” creativity is being operationalized in their study, so that more targeted hypotheses regarding the relationship between distinct aspects of creativity and such positive out-come variables may be formulated.

Open access

Ronald A. Beghetto and Maciej Karwowski

Abstract

How can creativity be encouraged in schools and what are the educational consequences of doing so? We address this question from a creative learning perspective. Specifically, we open by discussing how this question can be approached from at least two different perspectives: one that positions creativity and academic learning as competing goals and another that conceptualizes these goals as compatible. We discuss how a creative learning perspective helps to reframe this question and clarify the educational consequences of doing so. We close by briefly outlining five considerations for promoting favorable outcomes with respect to encouraging creativity in schools and classrooms.

Open access

James C. Kaufman

Abstract

Despite an ongoing surge of interest in creativity (both in academia and the public eye), it is essential that researchers focus on why creativity matters. Studies that empathize variables that help increase creativity are absolutely valuable, but I argue that need more work on how creativity can lead to positive outcomes. Much of the existing literature examines how creativity can improve school or work performance – which it does. Yet when these studies are compared with similar ones on conscientiousness, it is hard to argue that increasing creativity is the best way to succeed in school or work (at least using traditional metrics). I argue that as a field, we need to expand our ideas about how creativity can be beneficial. I end with an open call for suggestions.

Open access

Vlad Petre Glăveanu

Abstract

In this reply to Kaufman’s paper “Creativity’s Need for Relevance in Research and Real Life” I argue, from a sociocultural and pragmatist standpoint, that creativity matters because it captures the agentic, flexible, open and emergent side of human existence while, at the same time, helping us build, maintain, and transform the societies we live in.

Open access

Marie Forgeard

Abstract

Mental health is one of the potential outcomes of creative behavior deserving of further research, as much of previous anecdotal and scientific evidence has offered conflicting findings on this topic. Integrating the expertise and methods used by scholars in different disciplines (e.g., art therapy, clinical psychology, cognitive psychology, personality psychology) may help clarify the conditions under which creative behavior is or is not helpful for specific aspects of mental health, and generate new insights into the mechanisms that might explain such benefits.

Open access

Ahmed M. Abdulla and Bonnie Cramond

Abstract

This paper proposes a model, which hopefully will allow researchers in the psychology of creativity to confirm that the different levels and different labels for problem finding can be unified under one construct - problem finding (PF). Although no clear distinctions are made among the levels and terms used in the PF literature, the current efforts suggest that there are important differences that can be explained by (a) how well- or ill-defined a problem is, and (b) the degree to which ideation and evaluation are required. Based on these two criteria, a rubric is presented that allows distinctions to be made among five the PF processes: (a) problem discovery, (b) problem formulation, (c) problem construction, (d) problem identification, and (e) problem definition. The authors examined the literature on PF in English from 1960 to 2015 using the following databases: (a) Academic Search Premier, (b) PsycARTICLES, (c) PsycINFO, (d) Dissertation Abstract, (e) Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC), (f) Psychology & Behavioral Science Collection, and (g) the Google Scholar. This search resulted in 199 articles in which at least 13 different terms were used to describe the process of finding a problem. Only a few articles endeavored to distinguish among the terms used in the literature. This paper concludes by suggesting that one term (i.e., problem finding) is to be used to avoid confusion. If this is not possible, for whatever reason, the term used instead should be defined and the reasons for the choice of terms clearly stated.