-Hall Century Psychology Series.
Christensen, P. R., Guilford, J. P., &Wilson, R. C. (1957). Relations of creative responses to working time and instructions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53 , 82-88.
Dziedziewicz, D. & Karwowski, M. (2015). Development of children’s creative visual imagination: A theoretical model, measurement instrument and enhancement programs. Education 3-13 ; DOI:10.1080/03004279.2015.1020646.
Fink, A. & Benedek, M. (2012). EEG alpha power and creative ideation. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 44 , 111-123.
Sameh Said-Metwaly, Wim Van den Noortgate and Eva Kyndt
-specific perspectives. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 7, 209-223. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2012.04.006
*Batey, M. (2012). The measurement of creativity: From definitional consensus to the introduction of a new heuristic framework. Creativity Research Journal, 24, 55-65. doi: 10.1080/10400419.2012.649181
Batey, M., Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2010). Individual differences in ideational behavior: Can the big five and psychometric intelligence predict creativity scores? Creativity Research Journal, 22, 90-97. doi: 10
Sameh Said-Metwaly, Wim Van den Noortgate and Eva Kyndt
Research Journal, 4, 157-175.
*Bachelor, P., Michael, W. B., & Kim, S. (1994). First-order and higher-order semantic and figural factors in Structure-of-Intellect Divergent Production measures. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54, 608-619.
*Baer, J. (1991). Generality of creativity across performance domains. Creativity Research Journal, 4, 23-39.
Baer, J. (1993). Creativity and divergent thinking: A task-specific approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
*Baer, J. (1994a). Divergent
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.
Thinking Test Scores. The Journal of Creative Behavior , 42 , 2, 106–130; DOI:10.1002/j.2162-6057.2008.tb01290.x.
Lubart, T., Besançon, M., & Barbot, B. (2011). EPoC: Evaluation du potentiel créatif [Evaluation of potential creativity] . Paris : Hogrefe.
Lubart, T., Mouchiroud, C., Tordjman, S., & Zenasni, F. (2003). Psychologie de creativité [Psychology of creativity ]. Paris: Armand Colin.
Scratchley, L. S., & Hakstian, A. R. (2001). The measurement and prediction of managerial creativity. Creativity Research Journal , 13 , 3-4, 367–384; DOI:10
What is the life of an idea? How do some ideas result in creative outcomes? People interested in creativity often want to know the answers to these questions. Although there are numerous methods and measures for assessing creative persons and products, there is little by way of methods for documenting and analysing the trajectories of ideas. The purpose of this paper is to address this need by introducing a new approach for tracing and analysing ideational pathways. Ideational pathways refer to the trajectory of ideas in temporal and spatial dimensions. That is, how ideas travel through time and space and whether those ideas end up resulting in creative outcomes. We open the paper by providing a theoretical and conceptual background for ideational pathways. We then introduce an emerging approach for tracing these pathways and apply it to two examples. We close by discussing implications and directions for future research.
., & Kaufman, J. C. (2013). The effect of emotional intelligence and task type on malevolent creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts , 7 , 237-244.
Hornberg & Reiter-Palmon (2017)
Kapoor, H. (2015). The creative side of the dark triad. Creativity Research Journal , 27 , 58-67.
Kapoor, H., & Khan, A. (2016). The measurement of negative creativity: metrics and relationships. Creativity Research Journal , 28 , 404-416.
Kapoor, H., & Khan, A. (in press) Creativity in context: Presses and task effects in negative creativity
Amabile, T. M. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43 , 5, 997-1013.
Batey, M. (2012). The measurement of creativity: From definitional consensus to the introduction of a new heuristic framework. Creativity Research Journal, 24 , 1, 55-65.
Batey, M., Chamorro-Premuzic, T. & Furnham, A. (2010). Individual differences in ideational behavior: Can the Big Five and psychometric intelligence predict creativity scores? Creativity Research Journal, 22
, A. N. N. (2015). Commentary on ‘The psychology of creativity: A critical reading’. Creativity. Theories – Research – Applications , 2 , 1, 56-63; DOI: 10.1515/ctra-2015-0008.
Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jovchelovitch, S. (2007). Knowledge in context: Representations, community and culture . London: Routledge.
Karwowski, M. (2015). Notes on Creative Potential and Its Measurement. Creativity. Theories – Research – Applications , 2 , 1, 4-16; DOI: 10.1515/ctra-2015-0001.
Knopf, A. A. (1924
Potential and Its Measurement. Creativity. Theories - Research - Applications, 2(1), 4-16. doi: 10.1515/ctra-2015-0001
Karwowski, M., Kaufman, J. C., Lebuda, I., Szumski, G., & Firkowska-Mankiewicz, A. (2017). Intelligence in childhood and creative achievements in middle-age: The necessary condition approach. Intelligence, 64, 36-44. doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2017.07.001
Kaufman, J. C. (2012). Counting the Muses: Development of the Kaufman Domains of Creativity Scales (K-DOCS). Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 6(4), 298