Perspectives in Creativity

Irving Taylor

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• eBook ISBN: 9781351500104
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: History & Theory in Psychology
• Index: Psychology

In Perspectives in Creativity experts in the psychology of creativity take stock of the field by examining their own experiences. The contributors relate how they embarked on their work, how their ideas developed, what in their thinking remained the same, what had changed, and how they evaluate their successes and failures.

The introductory chapter provides a historical context for subsequent contributions. J. P. Guilford then describes the development of the field of creativity from the perspective of the Structure of Intellect model. Donald W. MacKinnon describes his work at the Institute of Personality Assessment and Research. J. W. Getzels and Mihalyi Csikszentmihalyi recount in the following chapter how, though starting with a conception of creativity as a problem-solving process, they were driven through their work with artists to a conception of creativity as also a problem-finding process. In the fifth chapter, Frank M. Andrews describes his investigations of the social and psychological factors in scientific laboratories.

Frank Barron examines the problem of creativity and alienation. Anne Roe analyzes the sources and development of paintings as reported by twenty artists. In the following chapter, Salvatore Maddi examines the widely held belief that social integration and a permissive environment are conducive to creative endeavor. In chapter 9, Calvin Taylor and Richard Ellison describe the development of the Utah program of assessment and intervention with regard to the creativity of children in the classroom. Next, Sidney Parnes discusses his work on "brainstorming" and its emphasis on a balance between imagination and judgment, freedom, and discipline. George Prince tells of the development of "synectics" since its early formulation and recounts its application to creative production in industry. E. Paul Torrance then examines recent creativity in the schools and describes his own efforts in devising diagnostic tests and educati

1 A Retrospective View of Creativity Investigation

Irving A. Taylor

PSYCHOLOGY, AS A SCIENCE for less than 100 years, has devoted its energies to various aspects of human life, pursuing implications of resulting theories. From these theories, many hypotheses about human behavior have been derived and empirically tested either under laboratory conditions or in the complex arena of everyday life. In modeling their science after the physical sciences, psychologists have generally devoted their attention to relatively less complex modes of behavior such as sensation, perception, motivation, and learning. Although they have been interested in creativity and have utilized their own creative abilities throughout the history of psychology, psychologists have only recently focused their attention on the creative process itself. A large-scale attempt to understand this complex human capability has occurred only during the last quarter century.

Frequently cited for his part in stimulating interest in this “area is J. P. Guilford (1950), who indicated in his presidential address to the American Psychological Association that less than .2 percent of the literature in psychology was devoted to creativity. He (1970) reported that by 1969 creativity investigation had increased to 1.4 percent—a sevenfold increase. Although creativity investigation is still not firmly entrenched as a major area of study in psychology, this highly neglected field of investigation is clearly gaining momentum.

The present chapter will survey the literature, indicating salient features and highlighting important issues in creativity investigation. The survey will not be exhaustive as others have provided adequate surveys from various points of views (e.g., Golann, 1963; Mackler and Shontz, 1965; Delias and Gaier, 1970; Guilford, 1970; Torda, 1970; Bloomberg, 1973). My purpose will be to examine the literature within a systematic framework, and provide a context for the subsequent chapters of this book. This chapter has been organized around the following questions: What is creativity? What are the systematic approaches to its study? What are the important areas of research? How is creativity assessed? Can creativity be developed? Finally, Why the growing concern with creativity?

What Is Creativity: Origins and Perspectives

Definitions of creativity are often misleading; they say too much and too little. They may, however, provide a point of departure for more extended and systematic investigation. Early definitions of creativity tended to be unitary in nature and they frequently indicated sources or origins of creativity, such as vitalism, nativism, empiricism, emergentism, serendipity, romanticism, physiology, culture, interpersonal relations, and personal (I. Taylor, 1973a).

Morgan (1953) listed 25 definitions of creativity which he extracted from the literature. Most of these definitions imply that creativity involved the development of something unique. Earlier, Spearman (1931) had generated interest in the area with his book Creative Mind. There he defined creativity as “the power of the human mind to create new content—by transferring relations and thereby generating new ‘correlates’—extends its sphere not only to representation in ideas, but also to fully sensuous presentations” (p. 148). The Gestalt psychologists defined creativity as an action that produces a new idea or insight through imagination rather than through reason or logic. Thurstone (1962) similarly assumed “that the creative act is characterized by the moment of insight which is often preceded by nonverbalized prefocal thinking,” and that creative thinking “is normally followed by explicit and deductive thinking in testing the new idea” (p. 52). As early as 1900 Ribot described creativity as a process of association by which mental states become joined together so that one state tends to invoke the other.

These early definitions are unifactory in nature, a practice which some current investigators continued. Mednick (1962), following the association-istic tradition of Ribot, defined creativity as a forming of associative, and largely mutually remote, elements into new combinations. Many contemporary investigators such as Barron (1969) and May (1959) simply defined creativity as the ability to bring something new into existence. Others, such as Fromm (1959), have described it as the ability to see or to be aware and to respond. Schachtel (1959) somewhat similarly described it as the art of viewing the familiar fully in its inexhaustible being. Others have analogized creativity in terms of biological processes (Gerard, 1946; Eccles, 1958; Sinnott, 1959; Gutman, 1967; Mumford, 1970, pp. 378-93).

Some researchers, most notably Guilford (1967a), view creativity as inherent in all persons, qualitatively similar at all levels, and therefore their concern is with quantitative differences relative to general population norms. Others, such as Ghiselin (1958), have postulated two kinds of creativity: the creativity manifested in those who devote their lives to creative ends, and the creativity manifested by the general population. This generally implied distinction, that there is a qualitative difference between the general population and those devoting their entire lives to creative ends, was the probable basis for selecting and observing highly creative individuals in several face-to-face studies.

Several earlier investigators postulated multilevels of creativity, particularly Freud’s (1933) primary and secondary processes and Jung’s (1946) differentiation between the type of creativity that transcends the boundary of psychologically intelligible material and the other type which does not. Maslow (1954) suggested two levels or distinct types of creativity. There is first the little-understood talent-type creativity, exemplified by such unique individuals as Mozart. Such geniuses display innate capabilities characterized by a complex and unique drive. The second is the self-actualized creativity, akin to the naïve creativeness of unspoiled children, a potential given to all human beings at birth. Five levels or dispositions to creativity, apparently related to different stages of individual development, were identified by I. Taylor (1959) which were expressive, technical, inventive, innovative, and emergentive creativity.

Many investigators have attempted to formulate criteria within their definitions of creativity. Newell, Shaw, and Simon (1963) have suggested the following criteria, one or more of which must be satisfied to be considered creative: (1) a product that has novelty and value either for the thinker or the culture; (2) a product that is unconventional in the sense that it requires modification or rejection of previously accepted ideas; (3) a product resulting from high motivation and persistence, either over a considerable span of time or at a high intensity; (4) a product resulting from the formulation of a problem which was initially vague and ill-defined (p. 780). I. Taylor (Taylor and Sandler, 1972) has suggested the following criteria for identifying a creative product: generation, reformulation, originality, relevancy, hedonics, complexity, and condensation.

According to Murray (1959), creativity is a process that results in a composition that is both new and valuable. Stein (1956) had similarly suggested that creativity is “that process which results in a novel work that is accepted as tenable or useful or satisfying by a group at some point in time” (p. 172). The last part dealing with acceptance is an historic point of view calling attention to the fact that societies and their values undergo change. It suggests that there is no absolute way to define creativity and that which is regarded as creative in one culture at one point in time may not be in another. Chambers (1969) defined creativity as a process in which new and unique products emerge from the interaction of the organism and its environment, involving the dimensions of level, field, and type.

Other investigators have also stressed the importance of viewing créativity as emerging from the interaction between the person and the environment. Rogers (1959), for example, defined creativity as an “emergence in action of a novel relational product, growing out of the uniqueness of the individual on the one hand, and the materials, events, people, or circumstances of his life on the other” (p. 71). Torrance (1962b) saw creative thinking “as the process of sensing gaps or disturbing, missing elements; forming ideas or hypotheses concerning them; testing these hypotheses; and communicating the results, perhaps modifying and retesting the hypotheses” (p. 16). Synectics, developed by Gordon (1961), defined the creative process as the mental activity in problem-stating, problem-solving situations where artistic or technical inventions are the result, thus stressing both problem formulation and problem solving as parts of the creative process.

Several current definitions are multifactor or multiprocess in nature. I. Taylor (1973a) has described the processes of creativity as a system involving a person who shapes or designs his environment by transforming basic problems into fruitful outcomes facilitated by a stimulating climate. The multifactor or multiprocess conception of creativity is reflected in the following description by MacKinnon: “It involves a response or an idea that is novel or at the very least statistically infrequent. But novelty or originality, while a necessary aspect of creativity, is not sufficient if a response is to lay claim to being a part of the creative process; it must also to some extent be adaptive to reality. It must serve to solve a problem, fit a situation, or accomplish some recognizable goal. And thirdly, true creativeness involves a sustaining of the original insight, an evaluation and elaboration of it, a developing of it to the full.” MacKinnon goes on to indicate that creativity involves “a process that is extended in time and characterized by originality, adaptiveness, and realization.” (see chapter 3.)

These diverse definitions indicate points of agreement and points of divergence. Sometimes these definitions serve as points of departure for systematic investigation. Frequently, however, they are not taken seriously, and there is often little continuity between the definition proffered and the ensuing theory and research. If one is to gain a better understanding of creativity, therefore, one should examine the systematic approaches, theories, and researches that have been developed, particularly during the past quarter century.

Systematic Approaches to Creativity

The greatest degree of divergency in creativity investigation is apparent in the formulation of various systems and approaches. It would seem that these divergent approaches take on the major characteristics of the creative process itself. Although any attempt to categorize the various approaches can be misleading, since a great deal of overlapping occurs, for convenience the following systems will be examined: psychoanalytic, humanistic, trait-factorial, holistic, and associationistic.

Psychoanalytic

Freud (1910, 1924, 1947) was the first to suggest clearly a dynamic theory of the creative act. He was probably the first to undertake serious work on man’s ability to create. To Freud, the process of sublimation provided the energy for all cultural accomplishments, including creativity. Imaginative creation like daydreaming was asserted to be a continuation and substitute for childhood play. Creative production was seen as the result of unconscious conflicts of drives and needs sublimated through the ego’s effort into outcomes useful to both the creator and society. Freud’s early writings generated in others a continuing interest in artistic creativity, largely from studies of poets, artists, and writers. Sublimation was seen as the basic process by which sexual energy was transformed into socially acceptable forms. Creativity was also seen as a substitute for achieving satisfaction and thus avoiding the hardships of reality. The creative individual turns from reality to fantasy, where he gives full play to his erotic wishes. If successful, he molds his fantasies into a new reality which becomes creative. Creative behavior is then an overt manifestation of sublimation, an unconscious process through which libidinal or aggressive energies are converted into culturally sanctioned behaviors. Since Freud also identified psychopathol-ogy as having an identical origin, a theoretic link was postulated between creativity and mental illness, although Freud did make a distinction between the two phenomena.

One additional aspect of Freud’s conception of creativity was his belief that the manifest artistic formulation was a restructuring of archaic unconscious images after these had been accepted as conscious symbols and after the symbols had been reformulated within contemporary acceptable modalities. The creative process thus originated within and not outside the person, and the creation mirrors unconscious imagery after it has been processed through the ego.

The prolific writings of Freud generated a host of subsequent investigations. The most important of these were psychoanalytic variations formulated by his disciples, Adler, Jung, and Rank.

For Jung (1971), “the unsatisfied yearnings of the artist reach back to the primordial image in the unconscious which is best fitted to compensate the inadequacy and one-sidedness of the present” (p. 321). The creator, in raising his image from the deepest unconsciousness, brings it into relation with conscious values, transforming it until it can be accepted by the minds of his contemporaries (Jung, 1959). Jung emphasized the concept of the collective unconscious, a storehouse of racial memories handed down from the distant past in the form of archetypes. Man consistently strives to develop from a less complete stage to a more complete one, aiming toward individuation, the most complete differentiation and harmonious blending of all man’s characteristics.

Adler’s (Ansbacher and Ansbacher, 1956) concept of the individual’s creative power was one of his major achievements as a personality theorist. His emphasis was on the uniqueness of persons as evident in each individual’s life style rooted in his specific inferiorities. Compensation for these inferiorities led to creative achievement. Adler, like Jung, posited an innate pattern of behavior striving for positive growth and self-actualization. For Adler, however, as opposed to Freud and Jung, creativity sprang from man’s consciousness rather than from his unconsciousness. All other aspects of man are subordinated to the creative power of the individual. Even personality is created from man’s constitutional disposition and experience. Creativity was viewed as supreme usefulness, and those who are more creative are more useful for purposes of serving a social function.

Rank (1932, 1945) was more concerned with art and creativity than other early psychoanalysts. He believed that the individual was able to reach his highest level of development by realizing an independent will through which he could resolve his guilt feelings and integrate his personality. He identified this person as the creative type or artist, and attributed to him the highest level of creative functioning. The artist’s motivation resulted from the need to externalize his personality into artistic acts.

A more recent psychoanalytic position has been developed by Kris (1952), who proposed the concept of “regression in the service of the ego,” suggesting that in the creative act the artist is in a state in which the ego is temporarily reduced. During this time the ego uses regressive material for its own creative purpos...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Preface
• Contributors
• 1 A Retrospective View of Creativity Investigation
• 2 Creativity
• 3 IPAR’s Contribution to the Conceptualization and Study of Creativity
• 4 From Problem Solving to Problem Finding
• 5 Social and Psychological Factors which Influence the Creative Process
• 6 The Solitariness of Self and Its Mitigation Through Creative Imagination
• 7 Painters and Painting
• 8 The Strenuousness of the Creative Life
• 9 Moving Toward Working Models in Creativity
• 10 AHA!
• 11 Creativity, Self, and Power
• 12 Creativity Research in Education
• 13 An Emerging View of Creative Actions
• 14 Creativity
• Name Index
• Subject Index