u08d2 Creativity

How would you respond to Sternberg's (2009, p. 468) questions about creativity? What is
creativity? Who would you consider to be a creative person and what makes that person creative?
What does it take to create something original and worthwhile? What characteristics do cognitive
psychologists notice in creative individuals? What is the connection between creativity and
emotions?

Please respond to the discussion question by (1) referring to and integrating ideas presented in
the text and any supplemental readings; (2) citing outside resources if necessary to make your
point; and (3) following APA style guidelines for citations and references. You will also need to
respond to one other learner in a manner that advances the discussion in some meaningful way.

You will be evaluated on how well you can demonstrate that you understand the ideas presented
throughout the unit, including assigned readings, discussions, and independent investigations.
You will also be evaluated on the quality of your workits academic rigor, how well it shows
your ability to think critically, and how completely it covers the questions asked.

Response Guidelines

Respond to at least one other learner in a manner that advances the discussion in a meaningful
way. Your response is expected to be substantive in nature and reference the assigned readings,
as well as other theoretical, empirical or professional literature to support your views and
writings. Reference your sources using standard APA guidelines.

What is creativity?

The concept of creativity has intrigued historians, scientists and educators for generations. From
a cognitive neuroscientific perspective, it is commonly understood that creativity is a
fundamental activity of human functioning (Dietrich, 2004). However, specifically defining
creativity has proven historically to be somewhat of a daunting and elusive task. Consequently, a
number of theories have been proposed from various viewpoints.

The debate centers around such inquiries as: Is creativity a concept or a theoretical construct?
Creativity as a concept may be widely accepted and shared in any given context; but for the
researcher, defining creativity as a construct is constrained by construct validity. Is creativity
domain general or domain specific? The domain specific approach suggests that creativity is
specific to a certain field, whereas the general approach suggests creative people can be creative
in many domains (Reiter-Palmon, et al., 2009). Or is creativity to be determined by the creator
or the evaluation of experts? Runno (1998) suggests that creativity is simply, anything that
some does in a way that is original to the creator and that is appropriate to the purpose and goals
of the creator. By way of contrast, Sternberg and Lubart (1995) advocate that creativity must be
judged by individuals within a sociocultural milieu. Clearly, creativity must be judged by an
objective standard.

It is generally agreed that a process/product objective definition of creativity should include two
primary criteria: originality and appropriateness. The question remains: Who determines
whether the product of the creator is original and appropriate? Most researchers agree that
creativity must be judged by experts within the domain parameters in which the creative product
originates (Sousa, 2008).

Who would you consider to be a creative person and what makes that person creative?

Determining who might be recognized as creative carries its own degree of elusiveness. Should
creative individuals be recognized based upon their traits, their behavior or the products they
produce? It is generally agreed that creative individuals actualize creative potential and
productivity (Sternberg and Sternberg, 2012).

Moreover, creative people produce creative products that are not only original, but are extremely
innovative within their domain. According to Sternberg and Sternberg (2012), creative people
demonstrate inherent qualities of flexibility and non-conformity, and are recognized as change
agents and innovators in society within their specific field of endeavor. Such individuals
typically employ a strong work ethic, and thus become experts in their field.

An individual such as Albert Einstein is considered creative, based upon his theory of relativity
which essentially eclipsed classical Newtonian physics and ushered in the new era of quantum
physics. His contribution to the field of physics changed the way in which scientists viewed
inertia and gravitational forces, which has been highly influential in the advanced technology
being developed in the world today.

What does it take to create something original and worthwhile?

In the words of Carl Jung, the creation of something new is not accomplished by the intellect
but by the play instinct acting from inner necessity. The creative mind plays with the objects it
loves (Moncur). Barron, (1988) suggests that creativity is an ability to respond adaptively to
the needs for new approaches and new products. The something new is usually a product
resulting from a process initiated by a person. But how does one determine whether the
something new is indeed original?

Sternberg and Lubart (1995) suggest that although creative people are recognized by the products
they produce, the product is not deemed creative until it is judged by expert individuals within its
specific domain (e.g. arts, sciences, education, etc.). However, defining who the experts are
within a given field of endeavor may be a difficult task. Moreover, because creativitys
innovative and even revolutionary criteria, creative ideas are often perceived as a threat to the
inept and parochial majority. This explains why many creative endeavors by eminent individuals
such as like Bach, Rembrandt and Mendel, were recognized as the products of creative geniuses
only after their death.

What characteristics do cognitive psychologists notice in creative individuals?

Some cognitive psychologists utilize models of creativity based upon evolutionary theory
(Sternberg and Sternberg, 2012). Campbell (1960) proposed that creativity and discovery were
contingent upon a two step process of blind variation and selective retention. Blind variation is
essentially the generation of an innovative idea (Sternberg and Sternberg, 2012), and then are
selectively retained based upon their evaluation as creative.

Researchers understood his theories to be based upon Darwins theory of evolution. However,
Simonton (2011) suggests that this notion is based upon a false assumption indicating that
Campbell made only two tangential references to Darwin in his publication, advocating that
creativity does not evolve in a similar manner as biological evolution. Therefore, creativity is
more of a dialectic process of nonrandom variation and personal volition.

Some cognitive psychologists view creativity from the perspective of problem solving and
insight (Sternberg and Sternberg, 2012). Hlie and Sun (2010) suggest that this is the result of a
simultaneous processing of explicit and implicit knowledge, the integration of which produces
synergy thus accelerating learning, performance and knowledge transfer. From a cognitive
neurological perspective, insight problem solving operates differently in the left and right brain
hemispheres. Each hemisphere holds a different problem presentation. Before sudden insight
emerges, neural signals burst from the right and left hemispheres yielding an integrative problem
presentation and a solution.

What is the connection between creativity and emotions?

Creative people tend to exhibit various levels of emotion throughout their developing careers.
As a result, their dedication to their work tends to range between extraordinary to extreme.
Emotional involvement and dedication often results in the abandonment, neglect and exploitation
of close relationships in adulthood (Sternberg and Sternberg, 2012).

Anthony Rhodes
General Psychology PhD.

References
Anderson, J. R., Bothell, D., Byrne, M. D., Douglass, S., Lebiere, C., & Qin, Y. (2004). An
Integrated Theory of the Mind. Psychological Review, 111(4), 1036-1060. doi:10.1037/0033-
295X.111.4.1036

Barron, F. (1988). Putting creativity to work. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Nature of creativity (pp.
7698). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Campbell, D. T. (1960). Blind variation and selective retentions in creative thought as in other
knowledge processes. Psychological Review, 67(6), 380-400. doi:10.1037/h0040373

Deitrich, Arne. (2004). The cognitive neuroscience of creativity. Psychonomic Bulletin &
Review. 11(6), p. 1011-1026. Retrieved on June 1, 2012 from
http://search.proquest.com.library.capella.edu/psychology/docview/204933401/fulltextPDF?
accountid=27965

Hlie, S., & Sun, R. (2010). Incubation, insight, and creative problem solving: A unified theory
and a connectionist model. Psychological Review, 117(3), 994-1024. doi:10.1037/a0019532

Ivcevic, Z. (2009). Creativity map: Toward the next generation of theories of creativity.
Psychology Of Aesthetics, Creativity, And The Arts, 3(1), 17-21. doi:10.1037/a0014918

Moncur, Laura. Motivational Quotes. http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/27093.html

Nairne J. (2002). Remembering the short term: The Case Against the Standard Model. Annual
Review Of Psychology [serial online]. February;53(1):53. Available from: Academic Search
Premier, Ipswich, MA. Accessed May 12, 2012.

Reiter-Palmon, R., Illies, M.Y., Cross, L.K., Buboltz, C., & Nimps, T. (2009). Creativity and
domain specificity: The effects of task type on multiple indexes of creative problem solving.
Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3, 7380

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

Simonton, D. (2011). Creativity and discovery as blind variation and selective retention:
Multiple-variant definition and blind-sighted integration. Psychology Of Aesthetics, Creativity,
And The Arts, 5(3), 222-228. doi:10.1037/a0023144

Sousa, F. (2008). Still the elusive definition of creativity. Instituto Superior D. Alfonso III.
Portugal. http://www.psyjournal.vdu.lt/uploads/Main/2008_2%20still%20the%20elusive
%20definition%20of%20creativity.pdf

Sternberg, R. S. & Lubart, T. I. (1995). Defying the crowd. London: The Free Press.
Sternberg, R. J., & Sternberg, K. (2012). Cognitive psychology (6th ed.). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth Cengage Learning. ISBN 9781133313915