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 …

Revisiting the Systems Approach: Commentary on Glăveanu’s Paper “The Psychology of Creativity: A Critical Reading”

Min Tang
Published Online: 2015-05-26 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ctra-2015-0012

Abstract

In responding to Glăveanu’s critical views on the psychology of creativity, this commentary summarizes seminal work that has been carried out on creativity since 1950s. It underscores the value of the systems approach and discusses key methodological issues related to this approach, including creativity assessment, the necessity for multi-level analyses, the bandwidth-fidelity-dilemma, the challenge of operationalizing creativity for empirical studies and the lack of communication across disciplines. It calls for more external support, cross-disciplinary and cross-cultural collaboration and the establishment of a more open, tolerant and creativity-conducive environment to encourage and unleash creativity in creativity research from creativity researchers.

Keywords: Systems approach; Methodology; Creativity assessment

REFERENCES

  • Amabile, T. M. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: a consensual assessment technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 5, 997-1013.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Amabile, T. M. (1983). Social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 357-377.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to The Social Psychology of Creativity. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar

  • Amabile, T., & Pillemer, J. (2012). Perspectives on the Social Psychology of Creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior 46, 1, 3–15.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Cronbach, L. J., & Gleser, G. C. (1965). Psychological tests and personnel decisions (2nd ed.). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar

  • De Dreu, C. K. W., Baas, M., & Nijstad, B. A. (2008). Hedonic tone and activation level in the mood-creativity link: Toward a dual pathway to creativity model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 739-756.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • EMCI IP summer school 2013 and 2014: www.emci.fham.de

  • Friedman R. S., Forster, J., & Denzler, M. (2007). Interactive effects of mood and task framing on creative generation. Creativity Research Journal, 19, 141-162.CrossrefGoogle 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

  • Gino, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2012). The dark side of creativity: Original thinkers can be more dishonest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 445-459.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. (2010). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 569–598.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: The Four C Model of Creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13, 1, 1-12.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Polzer, J., Milton, L. P., & Swann, B. (2002). Capitalizing on diversity: Interpersonal congruence in small work groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 296-324.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Moren, S. (2009). Creativity: A systems perspective. In T. Rickards, Runco M. A., & Moger, S. (Eds.), The Routledge Companion to Creativity (pp. 292-301). UK: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Miron-Spektor, E., Gino, F., & Argote, L. (2011). Paradoxical frames and creative sparks: Enhancing individual creativity through conflict and integration. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116, 2, 229-240.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. Phi Delta Kappan, 42, 305-310.Google Scholar

  • Runco, M. A., & Pagnani, A. (2008). Psychological research on creativity. In J. Sefton-Green, P. Thomson, K. Jones, & L. Bresler (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of creative learning (pp. 63-71). London: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Scott, G. M., Leritz, L. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2004). The effectiveness of creativity training: A quantitative review. Creativity Research Journal, 16, 36, 361-388.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Simonton, D. K. (1995). Exceptional personal influence. Creativity Research Journal, 8, 371-376.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Simonton, D. K. (2006). Historiometric methods. In A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. J. Feltovich, & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 319-335). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Tang, M. (2010). China’s young inventors: A systemic view of the individual and environmental factors. Dissertation of the Department of Psychology and Pedagogy, University of Munich, Germany. Retrievable under http://edoc.ub.uni-muenchen.de/14898/

  • Werner, C., Tang, L. M., Schmidt, J., Mielke, A., Spörrle, M., Neber, H., Zhou, Z., Zhao, X., & Cao, G. (2011). Applied creativity across domains and cultures: Integrating Eastern and Western perspectives. Creative Personality, 9, 228–240.Google Scholar

  • Westmeyer, H. (1998). The social construction and psychological assessment of creativity. High Ability Studies, 9, 1, 11-21.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

About the article

Received: 2014-10-31

Revised: 2014-12-18

Accepted: 2014-12-19

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-2015-0012.

Export Citation

© Min Tang. 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