The Psychology of Creativity: A Discussion Between Creative Potential and Its Realization

Open access

Abstract

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.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Amabile T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder Co: Westview Press Inc.

  • Baer J. (1998). The case for domain specificity of creativity. Creativity Research Journal 11 173-177.

  • Baer J. (1999). Domains of creativity. In M. A. Runco & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.) Encyclopedia of creativity (pp. 591-596). San Diego CA: Academic Press.

  • Carroll J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Glăveanu V. P. (2010). Paradigms in the study of creativity: Introducing the perspective of cultural psychology. New Ideas in Psychology 28 1 79-93.

  • 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.

  • Guilford J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist 5 444-454.

  • Harrington D. M. (1975). Effects of explicit instructions to “ be creative” on the psychological meaning of divergent thinking test scores. Journal of Personality 43 434-454.

  • Jauk E. Benedek M. Dunst B. & Neubauer A. C. (2013). The relationship between intelligence and creativity: New support for the threshold hypothesis by means of empirical breakpoint detection. Intelligence 41 212-221.

  • Karwowski M. (2009). Zgłebianie kreatywnosci. Studia nad pomiarem poziomu i stylu tworczosci. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Akademii Pedagogiki Specjalnej.

  • Karwowski M. & Gralewski J. (2013). Threshold hypothesis: Fact or artifact? Thinking Skills and Creativity 8 25-33.

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

  • Kim K. H. (2005). Can only intelligent people be creative? A meta-analysis. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education 16 57–66.

  • Kuhn T. H. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

  • Kuhn T. H. (2000). The road since „ structure”. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

  • Necka E. (2001). Psychologia tworczosci. Gdansk: Gdanskie Wydawnictwo Psychologiczne.

  • Nusbaum E. C. & Silvia P. (2011). Are intelligence and creativity really so different? Fluid intelligence executive processes and strategy use in divergent thinking. Intelligence 39 36–45.

  • Plucker J. A. (1999). Is the proof in the pudding? Reanalyzes of Torrance’s (1958 to Present) longitudinal data. Creativity Research Journal 12 103–114.

  • Plucker J. A. & Beghetto R. A. (2004). Why creativity is domain general why it looks domain specific and why the distinction does not matter. In R. J. Sternberg E. L. Grigorenko & J. L. Singer (Eds.) Creativity from potential to realization (pp. 153-168). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.

  • Popper K. R. (1974). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchinson Publishing Group Ltd.

  • Runco M. A. (2003). Education for creative potential. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 47 317-324.

  • Runco M. A. (2004). Everyone has creative potential. In R. J. Sternberg E. L. Grigorenko & J. L. Singer (Eds.) Creativity from potential to realization (pp. 21-30). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.

  • Sawyer R. K. (2006). Explaining creativity. The science of human innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.

  • Scott G. Leritz L. E. & Mumford M. D. (2004). The effectiveness of creativity training: A quantitative review. Creativity Research Journal 16 361–388.

  • Simonton D. K. (1999). Genius 101. New York: Springer Publishing Company.

  • Sligh A. C. Conners F. A. & Roskos-Ewoldsen B. (2005). Relation of creativity to fluid and crystallized intelligence. Journal of Creative Behavior 39 123–136.

  • Sternberg J. R. & O`Hara L. (1999). Creativity and intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.) Handbook of creativity (pp. 251-272). Cambridge NY: Cambridge University Press.

  • Weisberg R. W. (2006). Creativity. Understanding innovation in problem solving science invention and the arts. Hoboken NJ: Wiley.

  • Wisniewska E. & Karwowski M. (2007). Efektywnosc treningow tworczosci – podejscie metaanalityczne. Ruch Pedagogiczny 3-4 31-50.

Search
Journal information
Cited By
Metrics
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 283 136 3
PDF Downloads 160 95 2