<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">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.</abstract>

Creativity’s Need for Relevance in Research and Real Life: Let’s Set a New Agenda for Positive Outcomes

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">The author responds to <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="j_ctra-2018-0009_ref_001_w2aab3b7b1b1b6b1ab1ab1Aa">Kaufman’s (2018)</xref> target essay from a unique perspective – research on creative genius. Although the author began studying little-c creativity, he switched to Big-C creativity when he did his doctoral dissertation, and continued that work for the rest of his career. One implication of such research is that the relevance of creative genius cannot be questioned, even if its benefits are sometimes ambiguous (however obviously consequential). Another implication is that creative geniuses do not require training in creativity, whatever usefulness such instruction may possess for everyday creativity.</abstract>

Creative Genius as Inherently Relevant and Beneficial: The View from Mount Olympus

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">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.</abstract>

Yes, Creativity Can Predict Academic Success!

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">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.</abstract>

Educational Consequences of Creativity: A Creative Learning Perspective

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">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.</abstract>

Creativity in and for Society

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">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.</abstract>

“Generic” Creativity as a Predictor or Outcome of Identity Development?

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">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.</abstract>

Creativity for Mental Health: Seeking New Answers to an Old Question

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">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.</abstract>

Will Becoming More Creative Make us More Tolerant?

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">The paper by Kaufman (2018) calls for more research on the consequences of creativity. While we typically think about the positive consequences of creativity, it is important to understand that creativity can have negative, both intended and unintended consequences. In this commentary, I review the nascent literature on negative and malevolent creativity, and specifically discuss concerns regarding measurement. Having a consistent way to evaluate and measure negative creativity is critical to our understanding and future research.</abstract>

Are the Outcomes of Creativity Always Positive?

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="j_ctra-2018-0017_ref_017_w2aab3b7b9b1b6b1ab1ac17Aa">Kaufman (2018)</xref> 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.</abstract>

On Risks and Side Effects: Does Creative Accomplishment Make us Narcissistic?

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">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.</abstract>

Uniquely Creative: Developing a New Outline for Positive Outcomes

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">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 &amp; 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.</abstract>

The Creative Problem Finding Hierarchy: A Suggested Model for Understanding Problem Finding

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">The objective of my project entitled “Creating my own text-book - I know what I want to learn and how” was to develop children’s awareness of a broadly defined ability to learn, through the creation of their own textbooks, which they would like to use at school. The main aim of the research described below was to gain an understanding of what children them-selves would consider to be an ideal textbook from which to learn, what they would really like to learn about, and what are their interests and needs in terms of learning at school. Twenty-seven pupils from the III-rd grade of primary school participated in the project. The educational project lasted five months. A basic assumption of the research was that pupils have their own personal knowledge with regard to the content of what they would like to be taught at school. Conclusions from the research were formulated on the basis of interviews carried out with the children and an analysis of the textbooks which they created. The results show that the pupils who participated in the educational project are able to describe what their ideal school textbook should be like. The objective of the present paper is to present the conclusions drawn from the educational project from the perspective of developing meta-learning skills in young, school-aged children.</abstract>

Child’s creative activity as an opportunity to develop metalearning skills – analysis of an educational programme <italic>Creating my own textbook – I know what I want to learn and how</italic>

AHEAD OF PRINT

Volume 11 (2024): Issue 1 (January 2024)

Volume 10 (2023): Issue 1-2 (December 2023)

Volume 9 (2022): Issue 2 (December 2022)

Volume 9 (2022): Issue 1 (June 2022)

Volume 8 (2021): Issue 2 (December 2021)

Volume 8 (2021): Issue 1 (June 2021)

Volume 7 (2020): Issue 2 (December 2020)

Volume 7 (2020): Issue 1 (January 2020)

Volume 6 (2019): Issue 2 (December 2019)

Volume 6 (2019): Issue 1 (June 2019)

Volume 5 (2018): Issue 2 (December 2018)

Volume 5 (2018): Issue 1 (September 2018)

Volume 4 (2017): Issue 2 (December 2017)

Volume 4 (2017): Issue 1 (June 2017)

Volume 3 (2016): Issue 2 (December 2016)

Volume 3 (2016): Issue 1 (June 2016)

Volume 2 (2015): Issue 2 (November 2015)

Volume 2 (2015): Issue 1 (June 2015)

Creativity. Theories – Research - Applications

 The journal aims to provide a forum for the discussion of human creativity in all of its complexity - its recognition, correlates, determinants, possibilities for its encouragement and development - analyzed from the point of view of education, psychology, sociology, aesthetics, etc. Moreover, the journal will discuss issues of creative potential as well as actual creative achievements (everyday and eminent creativity). It will also consider methodological and statistical issues regarding quantitative and qualitative creativity studies in various countries. The journal is a platform for positive confrontation of the various ways of perceiving and investigating creativity and encouraging the interparadigmatic and interdiscursive dialogue of the representatives of distinct theoretical and methodological options.  Rejection Rate   65%  Archiving  Sciendo archives the contents of this journal in Portico - digital long-term preservation service of scholarly books, journals and collections.  Plagiarism Policy  The editorial board is participating in a growing community of Similarity Check System's users in order to ensure that the content published is original and trustworthy. Similarity Check is a medium that allows for comprehensive manuscripts screening, aimed to eliminate plagiarism and provide a high standard and quality peer-review process. 