Original Article
Aiming at Creativity and Ending up with a Range from Low-Hanging Fruits to Foolishness: A Reflective Model of Creativity
Nicolas Pichot,
Boris Forthmann, Eric Bonetto, Thomas Arciszewski, Nathalie Bonnardel, Sara Jaubert, Jean B. Pavani,
Corresponding Author
Nicolas Pichot
Aix-Marseille Université
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Nicolas Pichot, Centre PSYCLE, Aix-Marseille Université, Maison de la Recherche, 29 Avenue Robert Schuman, Aix-en-Provence Cedex 01 13621, France. E-mail: [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorNicolas Pichot,
Boris Forthmann, Eric Bonetto, Thomas Arciszewski, Nathalie Bonnardel, Sara Jaubert, Jean B. Pavani,
Corresponding Author
Nicolas Pichot
Aix-Marseille Université
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Nicolas Pichot, Centre PSYCLE, Aix-Marseille Université, Maison de la Recherche, 29 Avenue Robert Schuman, Aix-en-Provence Cedex 01 13621, France. E-mail: [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorABSTRACT
The term “creative” is commonly used in everyday language and in academic discourse to discuss the nature of artistic and innovative productions. This usage inherently implies the existence of a variable of creativity that allows different creative works to be compared. The standard definition of creativity asserts that a production must possess both value and novelty in order to be considered truly creative. However, previous psychometric studies aimed at establishing the existence of such a creativity variable based on these two dimensions have produced results that seem to demonstrate their independence or even negative association, based on a weak to negative correlation between value and novelty. These widely replicated empirical results seem to call into question the notion of a single creativity variable associated with productions, leading to a paradoxical use of the term “creative” to describe the object produced. In our study, we aimed to reproduce these results while addressing methodological errors made in previous efforts to establish construct validity. This work led us to test the existence of a common cause for the observed variations in novelty and value. The higher order factor we obtain in our analysis encompasses subtle differences from the conventional creativity axis and interacts negatively with novelty, while correlating positively with value.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
We have no known conflict of interest to disclose.
Open Research
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
The data that support the findings of this study are openly available in Open Science Framework (OSF) at https://osf.io/4fq3a/?view_only=92328dab6c1b4b398befba38aeb43f8b.
REFERENCES
- Acar, S., Burnett, C., & Cabra, J.F. (2017). Ingredients of Creativity: Originality and More. Creativity Research Journal, 29(2), 133–144; doi: 10.1080/10400419.2017.1302776.
- Amabile, T.M. (1979). Effects of external evaluation on artistic creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(2), 221–233; doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.37.2.221.
- Arreola, N.J., & Reiter-Palmon, R. (2016). The effect of problem construction creativity on solution creativity across multiple everyday problems. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 10(3), 287; doi: 10.1037/a0040389.
- Barbot, B., & Tinio, P.P.L. (2015). Where is the “g” in creativity? A specialization–differentiation hypothesis. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 1041; doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2014.01041.
- Bavato, D. (2022). Nothing New Under the Sun: Novelty Constructs and Measures in Social Studies. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 27–49; doi: 10.1108/s0733-558x20220000077006.
10.1108/S0733-558X20220000077006 Google Scholar
- Berg, J.M. (2014). The primal mark: How the beginning shapes the end in the development of creative ideas. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 125(1), 1–17; doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2014.06.001.
- Besemer, S.P. (1998). Creative product analysis matrix: testing the model structure and a comparison among products–three novel chairs. Creativity Research Journal, 11(4), 333–346; doi: 10.1207/s15326934crj1104_7.
- Besemer, S.P., & O'Quin, K. (1986). Analyzing Creative Products: Refinement and Test of a Judging Instrument. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 20(2), 115–126; doi: 10.1002/j.2162-6057.1986.tb00426.x.
- Besemer, S.P., & O'Quin, K. (1987). Creative product analysis: Testing a model by developing a judging instrument (pp. 367–389). Frontiers of Creativity Research: Beyond the Basics.
- Besemer, S.P., & O'Quin, K. (1999). Confirming the three-factor creative product analysis matrix model in an American sample. Creativity Research Journal, 12(4), 287–296; doi: 10.1207/s15326934crj1204_6.
- Blum, D., & Holling, H. (2017). Spearman's law of diminishing returns. A meta-analysis. Intelligence, 65, 60–66; doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2017.07.004.
- Bonmassar, C., Widmann, A., & Wetzel, N. (2020). The impact of novelty and emotion on attention-related neuronal and pupil responses in children. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 42, 100766.
- Borsboom, D. (2005). Measuring the mind: Conceptual issues in contemporary psychometrics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10.1017/CBO9780511490026 Google Scholar
- Browne, M.W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K.A. Bollen & J.S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
- Brueckl, M., & Heuer, F. (2022). irrNA: Coefficients of interrater reliability – generalized for randomly incomplete datasets. R package version 0.2.3. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=irrNA.
- Caroff, X., & Besançon, M. (2008). Variability of creativity judgments. Learning and Individual Differences, 18(4), 367–371; doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2008.04.001.
- Christiaans, H.H.C.M. (2002). Creativity as a Design Criterion. Creativity Research Journal, 14(1), 41–54; doi: 10.1207/S15326934CRJ1401_4.
- Coltman, T., Devinney, T.M., Midgley, D.F., & Venaik, S. (2008). Formative versus reflective measurement models: Two applications of formative measurement. Journal of Business Research, 61(12), 1250–1262; doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.01.013.
- Cropley, A. (2006). In praise of convergent thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 18(3), 391–404; doi: 10.1207/s15326934crj1803_13.
- Cropley, D.H., & Kaufman, J.C. (2012). Measuring Functional Creativity: Non-Expert Raters and the Creative Solution Diagnosis Scale. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 46(2), 119–137; doi: 10.1002/jocb.9.
- Csikszentmihályi, M., & Wolfe, R. (2014). New Conceptions and Research Approaches to Creativity: Implications of a Systems Perspective for Creativity in Education. In M. Csikszentmihalyi (Ed.), The Systems Model of Creativity (pp. 161–184). Dordrecht: Springer; doi: 10.1007/978-94-017-9085-7_10.
10.1007/978-94-017-9085-7_10 Google Scholar
- Dean, D.L., Hender, J.M., Rodgers, T.L., & Santanen, E. (2006). Identifying good ideas: constructs and scales for idea evaluation. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 7(10), 646–699.
- Demirkan, H., & Afacan, Y. (2012). Assessing creativity in design education: Analysis of creativity factors in the first-year design studio. Design Studies, 33(3), 262–278; doi: 10.1016/j.destud.2011.11.005.
- Diedrich, J., Benedek, M., Jauk, E., & Neubauer, A.C. (2015). Are creative ideas novel and useful? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 9(1), 35–40; doi: 10.1037/a0038688.
- Epskamp, S. (2019). semPlot: Path diagrams and visual analysis of various SEM packages' output. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=semPlot.
- Epskamp, S., Borsboom, D., & Fried, E.I. (2018). Estimating psychological networks and their accuracy: A tutorial paper. Behavior Research Methods, 50(1), 195–212.
- Epskamp, S., Cramer, A.O.J., Waldorp, L.J., Schmittmann, V.D., & Borsboom, D. (2012). qgraph: Network visualizations of relationships in psychometric data. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(4), 1–18; doi: 10.18637/jss.v048.i04.
- Farjoun, M. (2010). Beyond dualism: Stability and change as a duality. Academy of Management Review, 35(2), 202–225; doi: 10.5465/amr.35.2.zok202.
- Ferrando, P.J., & Lorenzo-Seva, U. (2018). Assessing the quality and appropriateness of factor solutions and factor score estimates in exploratory item factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 78(5), 762–780; doi: 10.1177/0013164417719308.
- Form, S., Aue, J., & Kaernbach, C. (2019). Judging Popular Novels as Creative Products: Which Creative Attributes Contribute to Their Success? Creativity. Theories–Research-Applications, 6(1), 20–41; doi: 10.1515/ctra-2019-0002.
10.1515/ctra-2019-0002 Google Scholar
- Frederiksen, M.H., & Knudsen, M.P. (2017). From creative ideas to innovation performance: The role of assessment criteria. Creativity and Innovation Management, 26(1), 60–74; doi: 10.1111/caim.12204.
- Glăveanu, V.P., Gillespie, A., & Karwowski, M. (2019). Are people working together inclined towards practicality? A process analysis of creative ideation in individuals and dyads. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 13(4), 388; doi: 10.1037/aca0000171.
- Golino, H., & Christensen, A. P. (2019). EGAnet: Exploratory graph analysis: A framework for estimating the number of dimensions in multivariate data using network psychometrics. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=EGAnet
- Hardy, J.H., III, Ness, A.M., & Mecca, J. (2017). Outside the box: Epistemic curiosity as a predictor of creative problem solving and creative performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 104, 230–237; doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2016.08.004.
- Harvey, S., & Berry, D.J. (2022). Toward a meta-theory of creativity forms: How novelty and usefulness shape creativity. Academy of Management Review, 48, 110; doi: 10.5465/amr.2020.0110.
- Heinen, D.J.P., & Johnson, D.R. (2018). Semantic distance: An automated measure of creativity that is novel and appropriate. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 12(2), 144–156; doi: 10.1037/aca0000125.
- Horn, D., & Salvendy, G. (2006a). Product creativity: Conceptual model, measurement and characteristics. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 7(4), 395–412; doi: 10.1080/14639220500078195.
10.1080/14639220500078195 Google Scholar
- Horn, D., & Salvendy, G. (2006b). Consumer-based assessment of product creativity: A review and reappraisal. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing, 16(2), 155–175; doi: 10.1002/hfm.20047.
- Horn, D., & Salvendy, G. (2009). Measuring consumer perception of product creativity: Impact on satisfaction and purchasability. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries, 19(3), 223–240; doi: 10.1002/hfm.20150.
- James, G., Witten, D., Hastie, T., & Tibshirani, R. (2014). An Introduction to Statistical Learning: With Applications in R. Berlin: Springer.
- Joo, S.-H., Lee, P., & Stark, S. (2022). The explanatory generalized graded unfolding model: Incorporating collateral information to improve the latent trait estimation accuracy. Applied Psychological Measurement, 46(1), 3–18; doi: 10.1177/01466216211051717.
- Kudrowitz, B.M., & Wallace, D. (2013). Assessing the quality of ideas from prolific, early-stage product ideation. Journal of Engineering Design, 24(2), 120–139; doi: 10.1080/09544828.2012.676633.
- Litchfield, R.C., Gilson, L.L., & Gilson, P.W. (2015). Defining creative ideas: Toward a more nuanced approach. Group & Organization Management, 40(2), 238–265; doi: 10.1177/1059601115574945.
- Lovelace, J.B., & Hunter, S.T. (2013). Charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders' influence on subordinate creative performance across the creative process. Creativity Research Journal, 25(1), 59–74; doi: 10.1080/10400419.2013.752228.
- Miron-Spektor, E., & Beenen, G. (2015). Motivating creativity: The effects of sequential and simultaneous learning and performance achievement goals on product novelty and usefulness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 127, 53–65; doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2015.01.001.
- Mueller, J., Melwani, S., Loewenstein, J., & Deal, J.J. (2018). Reframing the decision-makers' dilemma: Towards a social context model of creative idea recognition. Academy of Management Journal, 61(1), 94–110; doi: 10.5465/amj.2013.0887.
- Mulaik, S.A. (2010). Foundations of factor analysis. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
- Mulet, E., Royo, M., Chulvi, V., & Galán, J. (2017). Relationship between the degree of creativity and the quality of design outcomes. DYNA, 84(200), 38–45; doi: 10.15446/dyna.v84n200.53582.
10.15446/dyna.v84n200.53582 Google Scholar
- Noel, Y. (2014). A beta unfolding model for continuous bounded responses. Psychometrika, 79(4), 647–674.
- O'Quin, K., & Besemer, S.P. (1989). The development, reliability, and validity of the revised creative product semantic scale. Creativity Research Journal, 2(4), 267–278; doi: 10.1080/10400418909534323.
10.1080/10400418909534323 Google Scholar
- Osborn, A. (1957). Applied imagination. New York, NY: Charles Scribner's Sons.
- Paulus, P.B., Kohn, N.W., & Arditti, L.E. (2011). Effects of quantity and quality instructions on brainstorming. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 45(1), 38–46; doi: 10.1002/j.2162-6057.2011.tb01083.x.
- R Core Team. (2019). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
- Revelle, W. (2019). psych: Procedures for psychological, psychometric, and personality research. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University.
- Rietzschel, E.F., Nijstad, B.A., & Stroebe, W. (2006). Productivity is not enough: A comparison of interactive and nominal brainstorming groups on idea generation and selection. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(2), 244–251; doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2005.04.005.
- Rietzschel, E.F., Nijstad, B.A., & Stroebe, W. (2010). The selection of creative ideas after individual idea generation: Choosing between creativity and impact. British Journal of Psychology, 101(1), 47–68; doi: 10.1348/000712609X414204.
- Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36.
- Royston, R., & Reiter-Palmon, R. (2019). Creative self-efficacy as mediator between creative mindsets and creative problem-solving. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 53(4), 472–481; doi: 10.1002/jocb.226.
- Runco, M.A., & Charles, R.E. (1993). Judgments of originality and appropriateness as predictors of creativity. Personality and Individual Differences, 15(5), 537–546; doi: 10.1016/0191-8869(93)90337-3.
- Runco, M.A., & Jaeger, G.J. (2012). The Standard Definition of Creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 92–96; doi: 10.1080/10400419.2012.650092.
- Schad, J., Lewis, M.W., Raisch, S., & Smith, W.K. (2016). Paradox research in management science: Looking back to move forward. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 5–64; doi: 10.5465/19416520.2016.1162422.
- Shalley, C.E., Zhou, J., & Oldham, G.R. (2004). The effects of personal and contextual characteristics on creativity: Where should we go from here? Journal of Management, 30(6), 933–958; doi: 10.1016/j.jm.2004.06.007.
- Shrout, P.E., & Fleiss, J.L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86(2), 420–428; doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420.
- Simonton, D.K. (2012). Combinatorial creativity and sightedness: Monte Carlo simulations using three-criterion definitions. International Journal of Creativity & Problem Solving, 22(2), 5–17.
- Simonton, D.K. (2015). On praising convergent thinking: Creativity as blind variation and selective retention. Creativity Research Journal, 27(3), 262–270; doi: 10.1080/10400419.2015.1063877.
- Sousa, F.C. (2007). Still the elusive definition of creativity. International Journal of Psychology: A Biopsychosocial Approach, 2, 55–82.
- Steele, L.M., Hardy, J.H., III, Day, E.A., Watts, L.L., & Mumford, M.D. (2021). Navigating creative paradoxes: Exploration and exploitation effort drive novelty and usefulness. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 15(1), 149; doi: 10.1037/aca0000236.
- Ward, T.B. (2008). The role of domain knowledge in creative generation. Learning and Individual Differences, 18(4), 363–366; doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2007.07.002.
- Weisberg, R., Pichot, N., Bonetto, E., Pavani, J.B., Arciszewski, T., & Bonnardel, N. (2021). From explicit to implicit theories of creativity and back: The relevance of naive criteria in defining creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 55(3), 839–856.
- Weisberg, R.W. (2015). On the Usefulness of “Value” in the Definition of Creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 27(2), 111–124; doi: 10.1080/10400419.2015.1030320.
- Weisberg, R.W. (2018). Response to Harrington on the Definition of Creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 30(4), 461–465; doi: 10.1080/10400419.2018.1537386.
- Wells, G.L., & Windschitl, P.D. (1999). Stimulus sampling and social psychological experimentation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(9), 1115–1125; doi: 10.1177/01461672992512005.
- Westmeyer, H. (1998). The social construction and psychological assessment of creativity. High Ability Studies, 9(1), 11–21; doi: 10.1080/1359813980090102.
10.1080/1359813980090102 Google Scholar
- White, A., & Smith, B.L. (2001). Assessing Advertising Creativity Using the Creative Product Semantic Scale. Journal of Advertising Research, 41(6), 27–34; doi: 10.2501/JAR-41-6-27-34.
- Zhou, J., Wang, X.M., Song, L.J., & Wu, J. (2017). Is it new? Personal and contextual influences on perceptions of novelty and creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(2), 180–202; doi: 10.1037/apl0000166.
