A Commentary on the Social Perspective on Creativity

Mark A. Runco 1
  • 1 University of Georgia, Athens, GA USA


This commentary examines the social perspective on creativity, as presented in the featured article. There are several attractive aspects to the social perspective, but serious limitations as well, which are detailed in this commentary. The assumptions of the social perspective are also discussed. The most questionable of these assumes that social recognition and impact are inherent parts of creativity. The parsimonious alternative is to define creativity such that it includes only what is related to creativity per se and to recognize that social recognition may follow creation and is certainly extricable from it. A defence of this parsimonious view is presented. A brief discussion of possible crises in the field of creativity studies is also presented, with one suggestion being that the diverse approaches used in the field represent a kind of divergent thinking and as such represent progress, even though it is not linear. This commentary concludes with a discussion about creativity being vital for quality of life. That perspective differs dramatically from the product view of creativity which is often tied to a social perspective.

Falls das inline PDF nicht korrekt dargestellt ist, können Sie das PDF hier herunterladen.

  • Albert, R. S. (1995). Madison Avenue Comes to Academe. Creativity Research Journal, 8, 427-429.

  • Amabile, T. M. (1995). Attributions of Creativity: What Are the Consequences? Creativity Research Journal 8, 423-426.

  • Amabile, T. M. (1985). Motivation and creativity: Effects of motivational orientation on creative writers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 393-399.

  • Amabile, T. M., & Kramer, S. (2010). What really motivates workers. Harvard Business Review, 88, 1, 44-45.

  • Barron, F. (1995). No rootless flower: An ecology of creativity. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

  • Eisenberger, R., & Shanock, L. (2003). Reward, intrinsic motivation, and creativity: A case study of conceptual and methodological isolation. Creativity Research Journal, 15, 121-130.

  • Glăveanu, V. P. (2014). The psychology of creativity: A critical reading. Creativity. Theories – Research – Applications, 1, 10-32; DOI: 10.15290/ctra.2014.01.01.02.

  • Gruber, H. E. (1988). The evolving systems approach to creative work. Creativity Research Journal, 1, 27-51.

  • Kasof, J. (1995). Explaining creativity: The attributional perspective. Creativity Research Journal, 8, 311-366.

  • Kharkhurin, A. (2014). Creativity four-in-one: Four Criterion Construct of Creativity Creativity Research Journal, 26, 338–352.

  • Koestler, A. (1964). The act of creation. New York: Macmillan.

  • Richards, R. (1991). A new aesthetic for environmental awareness: Chaos theory, the beauty of nature, and our broader humanistic identity. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 41, 59–95.

  • Richards, R. (2007). Everyday creativity and new views of human nature. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

  • Rogers, C. R. (1959). Toward a theory of creativity. In H. H. Anderson (Ed.), Creativity and its cultivation (pp. 69-82). New York: Harper & Row.

  • Rothenberg, A. (1999). Janusian processes. In M. A. Runco & S. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (pp. 103-108). San Diego, CA: Academic.

  • Runco, M. A. (1989). The creativity of children’s art. Child Study Journal, 19, 177-189.

  • Runco, M. A. (1995). Insight for creativity, expression for impact. Creativity Research Journal, 8, 377-390.

  • Runco, M. A. (1999). Misjudgment of creativity. In M. A. Runco & S. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (pp. 235-240). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

  • Runco, M. A. (2005). Self-actualization. In N. J. Salkind (Ed.). Encyclopedia of human development (pp. 1132-1133). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

  • Runco, M. A. (2010). Creative thinking may be simultaneous as well as blind [Comment on Creative thought as blind-variation and selective retention: Combinatorial models of exceptional creativity by Dean Keith Simonton] Physics of Life Reviews, 7, 184-185.

  • Runco, M. A. (2010). Products depend on creative potential: A comment on the productivist industrial model of knowledge production. Gifted and Talented International, 25, 81-87.

  • Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24, 92-96.

  • Runco, M. A., McCarthy, K. A., & Svensen, E. (1994). Judgments of the creativity of artwork from students and professional artists. Journal of Psychology, 128, 23-31.

  • Runco, M. A., & Smith, W. R. (1992). Interpersonal and intrapersonal evaluations of creative ideas. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 295-302.

  • Sternberg, R. J. (1995). If You Change Your Name to Mark Twain, Will You Be Judged As Creative? Creativity Research Journal, 8, 367-370.

  • Simonton, D. K. (2012). Taking the U.S. Patent Office Criteria Seriously: A Quantitative Three-Criterion Creativity Definition and Its Implications. Creativity Research Journal, 24, 97-106.

  • Wallach, M. A., & Wing, C. W. Jr. (1969). The Talent Student: A Validation of the Creativity Intelligence Distinction. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.


Zeitschrift + Hefte