Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Creativity. Theories – Research - Applications

2 Issues per year

Open Access
Online
ISSN
2354-0036
See all formats and pricing
More options …

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

Jacek Gralewski
Published Online: 2015-05-26 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ctra-2015-0007

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.

Keywords: Creativity theory; Creativity research; Creative potential; Creative abilities; The generality-specificity of creativity

REFERENCES

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

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

  • 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.Google Scholar

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

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

  • 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.Google Scholar

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

  • 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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 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.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • 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.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 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.Google Scholar

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

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

  • 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.Google Scholar

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

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

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

  • 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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 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.Google Scholar

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

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

About the article

Received: 2014-11-29

Revised: 2014-12-05

Accepted: 2014-12-15

Published Online: 2015-05-26

Published in Print: 2015-06-01


Citation Information: Creativity. Theories – Research - Applications, ISSN (Online) 2354-0036, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ctra-2015-0007.

Export Citation

© Jacek Gralewski et al.. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License. BY-NC-ND 3.0

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in