. S., & Sosniak, L. A. (1981). Talent development. Educational Leadership, 39(2), 86-94.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3 (2), 77-101.
Brown, I. (2010). Ambivalence, Maternal. In A. O'Reilly (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Motherhood (pp. 50-52). Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications.
Ciciola-Izzo, R. (2014). Mother/Art: A Journey into Selfhood, Motherhood and Art Education through Personal Works. A Thesis in The Department of Art Education. Montréal
creativity. An ecological perspective. In J. C. Kaufman & J. Baer (Eds.), Creativity and reason in cognitive development . Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, Sao Paulo: Cambridge University Press.
Steidle, A., & Werth, L. (2013). Freedom from constraints: Darkness and dim illumination promote creativity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 35, 67-80.
Beghetto, R. A. (2006). Creative self-efficacy: Correlates in middle and secondary students. Creativity Research Journal, 18 , 447-457.
Beghetto, R. A., Kaufman, J. C., & Baxter, J. (2011). Answering the unexpected questions: Exploring the relationship between students' creative self-efficacy and teacher ratings of creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5, 342-349.
Ceci, S. J. (1990). On Intelligence … more or less: A bio-ecological treatise on intellectual development . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Aubra C. Shepard, Elisabeth Morney and Sarah E. Sumners
., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39 (5), 1154-1184. doi:10.2307/256995
Baird, B., Smallwood, J., Mrazek, M. D., Kam, J. Y., Franklin, M. S., & Schooler, J. W. (2012). Inspired by distraction: Mind wandering facilitates creative incubation. Psychological Science, 23 (10), 1117-1122. doi:10.1177/0956797612446024
Barron, F. (1963). The need for order and disorder as motives in creativity. In C.W. Taylor & F. Barron (Eds.), Scientific creativity: Its recognition and development (pp. 153
. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 11 (3), 309-324. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/aca0000127
Kaufman, J. (2012). Counting the muses: Development of the Kaufman Domains of Creativity Scale (K-DOCS). Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts , 6, 298-308. doi: 10.1037/t17613-000
Kaufman, J. C. (2006). Self-reported differences in creativity by gender and ethnicity. Journal of Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20 , 1065-1082.
Kaufman, J. C., Beghetto, R. A., & Watson, C. (2016). Creative metacognition and self-ratings of creative
The paper deals with social and family conditions for the development of creative thinking. It is a voice in the dispute between supporters of the view that creative thinking is inherited and supporters of the thesis that it is shaped socially and within the process of education. The author presents an argument for the role of childhood and the mother in shaping creative predispositions. An attempt at polemics with concepts such as the “creative school” or the “creative teacher” is made.
The commentary confirms and builds on Glăveanu’s critical scrutiny of the current stage of creativity research. The need for more actors, theories, methods and definitions will not be fulfilled until critical reflection concerning what has been done and synthesis between different research attempts are achieved. The authors first expand the creativity stage by discussing what will happen in creativity research attempts if we alternate with a “ she, you and they” perspective? They then present a new definition of creativity. Creativity is seen as a collective, generative, novel way of experiencing reality ending with the idea of a shared product that is evaluated as creative in a relevant context. This definition is in line with the development of a new creativity tool or measurement, the Test for Distributed Creativity in Organizational Groups (DOG). The DOG can be used both for measuring the products of creative groups and investigating their processes.
This text is devoted to a discussion of current achievements in the psychology of creativity, as well as to the further development of the field. It is concerned with a criticism of former and current theses in the field of the psychology of creativity discussed by Glăveanu (2014). The arguments presented indicate that, despite Glăveanu’s (2014) proposition, the psychology of creativity is not in crisis. It is pointed out that the difference in views between supporters of the social psychology approach to creativity and psychology researchers oriented towards the study of creative potential on how to conduct creativity research, stems from a concentration on different levels of creativity, and not necessarily from an ineffective theory of creativity. As a consequence of these different perceptions of creativity at its particular levels, determining the prime standard of creative potential is not sufficient to understand the social conditioning of creative activity and the social assessment of creativity, and vice versa.
The article explores the social essence of creativity. Two studies where interactions with others shape the development of creative processes are presented; first, theoretical perspectives on creativity as social process are discussed. The first study analyzes social aspects of creative processes developed during leisure activities. Men and women (N=150) living in Córdoba (Argentina) were interviewed in the research. The second study is a form of biographical research. The sample includes 22 Argentine personalities prominent in the scientific and artistic fields. As a main result, in the two studies we observed that links with family, teachers, peers, colleagues, mentors, tutors and disciples shape the possibilities of developing everyday creativity as well as Big-C creativity. Finally, considerations and suggestions for future research on creativity as a social process are presented. Creativity emerges from dialogues, interactions and practices with others. It is not a solitary process: it involves languages, knowledge and actions that are socially constructed.
The present time is a period of dynamic development of new media, which should be accompanied by a more profound reflection over their impact on human development. The research on the impact of new media on children seems to be important as children become increasingly exposed to the virtual world, at the same time exploring reality. The time and commitment with which they “absorb” media images is bound to take its toll on a child’s psyche, which manifests itself in the imaging. The article presents the research on drawing activity of children from 3 to 12 years old in the context of changes occurring in these activities brought about by the visual language of new media. The fact that this extensive research has been carried out over an interval of 10 years (in 2004 I carried out an analysis of 4180 drawings of children and youth aged 3 to 18 years, while in the study repeated in 2014 I examined 2134 drawings of children aged 3 to 12 years), makes it possible to compare the results of the two studies, and also to confront them with descriptions of children’s drawings found in the specialized literature. In this way, the obtained characteristics may be referred to the visual language used to construct the new media image. Qualitative and quantitative analyses, as well as a comparison of the results, have allowed not only changes in the children’s drawing activities to be determined, but also indicate the direction of these changes. For the research, it was also important to find arguments in favour of media education with reference to visual education and defined as training, that pertains to the entire contemporary iconosphere.