Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
In This Section

Creativity. Theories – Research - Applications

2 Issues per year

Open Access
See all formats and pricing
In This Section

The Status of the Social in Creativity Studies and the Pitfalls of Dichotomic Thinking*

Vlad Petre Glăveanu
  • Corresponding author
  • Aalborg University, Denmark
  • Email:
Published Online: 2015-05-26 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ctra-2015-0016


Creativity studies seem to be a stronghold for individual-based psychological theories. The reasons for this are numerous and complex and, among them, we can identify certain limited or counter-productive ways of conceptualising the social. In this reply to comments I address both the status of the social in creativity studies and the dichotomies that follow from adopting an external view of society and culture. Among them, the separation between creative potential and achievement is particularly problematic, as it constructs a reified, static, and individual notion of potential, reflected in the measurement of divergent thinking. I propose, towards the end, a perspectival model of creativity that radically socialises divergent thinking by placing the social at the core rather than the periphery of creative production. Finally, I suggest that including time into our theory and research holds the key to overcoming many of the false dichotomies that underline creativity studies, at least in psychology. A thoroughly social perspective on creativity might seem like a daring or foolish endeavour but it is, in my view, also the most promising.

Keywords: Creativity; Social; Potential; Achievement; Divergent thinking; Perspectives; Time


  • * Reply to Comments Part 2


  • Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. Ed. Michael Holquist. Trans. Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist. Austin and London: University of Texas Press.

  • Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  • Brown, V. R., & Paulus, P. B. (2002). Making group brainstorming more effective: Recommendations from an associative memory perspective. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 208-212.

  • Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-KonsultitOy.

  • Farr, R. M. (1983). Wilhelm Wundt (1832-1920) and the origins of psychology as an experimental and social science. British Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 4, 289-301. [Crossref]

  • Citko, K. (2015). “ And what is a beautiful poem” ? Reflections of a poet on Vlad Petre Glăveanu’s ‘The psychology of creativity: A critical reading’. Creativity. Theories – Research – Applications, 2, 1, 97-101; DOI: 10.1515/ctra-2015-0015. [Crossref]

  • Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1998). Creativity and genius: A systems perspective. In A. Steptoe (Ed.) Genius and the mind: Studies of creativity and temperament (pp. 39-66). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Dewey, J. (1934). Art as experience. New York, NY: Penguin.

  • Galton, F. (1874). English men of science: Their nature and nurture. London: MacMillan.

  • Gillespie, A. (2006a). Becoming other: From social interaction to self-reflection. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

  • Gillespie, A. (2006b). Games and the development of perspective taking. Human Development, 49, 87-92.

  • Gillespie, A., & Martin, J. (2014). Position exchange theory: A socio-material basis for discursive and psychological positioning. New Ideas in Psychology, 32, 73-79.

  • Glăveanu, V. P. (2011). Creativity as cultural participation. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 41, 1, 48-67.

  • Glăveanu, V. P. (2012). From dichotomous to relational thinking in the psychology of creativity: A review of great debates. Creativity and Leisure: An intercultural and crossdisciplinary journal, 1, 2, 83-96.

  • Glăveanu, V. P. (forthcoming). Creativity as a sociocultural act. Journal of Creative Behavior.

  • Gralewski, J. (2015). The Psychology of Creativity: A Discussion Between Creative Potential and Its Realization. Creativity. Theories – Research – Applications, 2, 1, 49-55; DOI: 10.1515/ctra-2015-0007. [Crossref]

  • Graumann, C. F. (1986). The individualization of the social and the desocialization of the individual: Floyd H. Allport’s contribution to social psychology. In C. F. Graumann & S. Moscovici (Eds.), Changing conceptions of crowd mind and behavior (pp. 97-116). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

  • Harré, H. R., & van Langenhove, L. (Eds.) (1998). Positioning theory. Oxford: Blackwell.

  • Hennessey, B. A. (2015). Comment on “ The Psychology of Creativity: A Critical Reading” by Vlad Petre Glăveanu. Creativity. Theories – Research – Applications, 2, 1, 32-37; DOI: 10.1515/ctra-2015-0004. [Crossref]

  • Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. (1999). Consensual assessment. In M. A. Runco & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity, Vol. 1 (pp. 346–359). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

  • Hermans, H. J. M. (2001). The Dialogical Self: Toward a theory of personal and cultural positioning. Culture Psychology, 7, 243-281.

  • Hermans, H. J. M. (2002). The dialogical self as a society of mind. Theory & Psychology, 12(2), 147-160.

  • Hoff, E., & Carlsson, I. (2015). She, You and They – More actors on the creativity research stage! Creativity. Theories – Research – Applications, 2, 1, 38-43; DOI: 10.1515/ctra-2015-0005. [Crossref]

  • Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

  • Hui, A. N. N. (2015). Commentary on ‘The psychology of creativity: A critical reading’. Creativity. Theories – Research – Applications, 2, 1, 56-63; DOI: 10.1515/ctra-2015-0008. [Crossref]

  • Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Jovchelovitch, S. (2007). Knowledge in context: Representations, community and culture. London: Routledge.

  • Karwowski, M. (2015). Notes on Creative Potential and Its Measurement. Creativity. Theories – Research – Applications, 2, 1, 4-16; DOI: 10.1515/ctra-2015-0001. [Crossref]

  • Knopf, A. A. (1924). Principles of psychology. New York, NY: Kantor, J. R.

  • Kharkhurin, A. (2015). The Big Question in creativity research: The transcendental source of creativity. Creativity. Theories – Research – Applications, 2, 1, 90-96; DOI: 10.1515/ctra-2015-0014. [Crossref]

  • Lohman, D. F., & Lakin, J. (2006). Nonverbal test scores as one component of an identification system: Integrating ability, achievement, and teacher ratings. In J. VanTassel-Baska (Ed.). Alternative assessments for identifying gifted and talented students. Austin, TX: Prufrock Press.

  • Lubart, T. (2003). Psychologie de la créativité. Paris: Armand Colin.

  • Lubart, T., & Caroff, X. (2015). Has creativity research become a trivial pursuit? Creativity. Theories – Research – Applications, 2, 1, 44-48; DOI: 10.1515/ctra-2015-0006. [Crossref]

  • Marková, I. (2003). Dialogicality and social representations: The dynamics of mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society from the standpoint of a social behaviorist. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  • Min Tang, L. (2015). Revisiting the systems approach: Commentary on Glăveanu’s paper “ The Psychology of Creativity: A Critical Reading”. Creativity. Theories – Research – Applications, 2, 1, 79-84; DOI: 10.1515/ctra-2015-0012. [Crossref]

  • Montuori, A., & Purser, R. (1997). Social creativity: The challenge of complexity. Translation of Le dimensioni sociali della creatività. Pluriverso, 1, 2, 78-88.

  • Moran, S. (2015). Creativity is a label for the aggregated, time-dependent, subjective judgments by creators and by adopters. Creativity. Theories – Research – Applications, 2, 1, 64-69; DOI: 10.1515/ctra-2015-0009. [Crossref]

  • Moscovici, S. (1984). The phenomenon of social representations. In R. Farr & S. Moscovici (Eds.), Social representations (pp. 3-70). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Nijstad, B., & Paulus, P. (2003). Group creativity: Common themes and future directions. In P. Paulus & B. Nijstad (Eds.), Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration (pp. 326-339). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

  • Persson, R. (2015). Erudite, insightful and immensely important: A commentary on V. P. Glǎveanu’s critical article ‘The psychology of creativity – a critical reading’. Creativity. Theories – Research – Applications, 2, 1, 17-20; DOI: 10.1515/ctra-2015-0002. [Crossref]

  • Plucker, J. A., & Runco, M. A. (1998). The death of creativity measurement has been greatly exaggerated: Current issues, recent advances, and future directions in creativity assessment. Roeper Review, 21, 1, 36-39.

  • Runco, M. A. (2015). A Commentary on the social perspective on creativity. Creativity. Theories – Research – Applications, 2, 1, 21-31; DOI: 10.1515/ctra-2015-0003. [Crossref]

  • Simonton, D. K. (2003). Creative cultures, nations, and civilizations: Strategies and results. In P. Paulus & B. Nijstad (Eds.), Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration (pp. 304-325). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

  • Tan, A.-G. (2015). Knowing creativity. Creativity. Theories – Research – Applications, 2, 1, 85-89; DOI: 10.1515/ctra-2015-0013. [Crossref]

  • Tanggaard, L. (2015). Reaching out for everyday life creativity. Creativity. Theories – Research – Applications, 2, 1, 75-78; DOI: 10.1515/ctra-2015-0011. [Crossref]

  • Tanggaard, L. & Glăveanu, V. P. (2014). Creativity assessment as intervention: The case of creative learning. Akademisk Kvarter/Academic Quarter, 9(1), 18-30.

  • Tylor, E. B. (1871). Primitive culture: Researches into the development of mythology, philosophy, religion, art and custom, 1. London: Murray.

  • Valsiner, J. (Ed.) (1986). The individual subject and scientific psychology. New York, NY: Plenum.

  • Valsiner, J. (2014). An invitation to cultural psychology. New Delhi: Sage.

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Edited by M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner & E. Souberman. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  • Wagoner, B. (2015). From crisis to creativity: Towards a psychology of creating. Creativity. Theories – Research – Applications, 2, 1, 70-74; DOI: 10.1515/ctra-2015-0010. [Crossref]

  • Watson, J. B. (1913). Psychology as the behaviorist views it. Psychological Review, 20, 2,158-177.

  • West, M. A. (2002). Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of creativity and innovation implementation in work groups. Applied psychology: An international review, 51, 3, 355-424.

  • Zeng, L., Proctor, R. W., & Salvendy, G. (2011). Can traditional divergent thinking tests be trusted in measuring and predicting real-world creativity? Creativity Research Journal, 23, 1, 24-37.

  • Zha, P., Walczyk, J. J., Griffith-Ross, D. A., Tobacyk, J. J., & Walczyk, D. F. (2006). The impact of culture and individualism–collectivism on the creative potential and achievement of American and Chinese adults. Creativity Research Journal, 18, 3, 355-366.

About the article

Received: 2015-02-04

Revised: 2015-02-10

Accepted: 2015-02-14

Published Online: 2015-05-26

Published in Print: 2015-06-01

* Reply to Comments Part 2

Citation Information: Creativity. Theories – Research - Applications, ISSN (Online) 2354-0036, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ctra-2015-0016. Export Citation

© Vlad Petre Glăveanu. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License. (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0)

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in