The Meaning and Measurement
of Creativity
Introduction
Definition and assessment of creativity have
long been a subject of disagreement and
dissatisfaction.
Creativity can be identified with particular,
specifiable features of products or person or
thought processes.
Creativity defined by the quality of the
response that a product elicits form an
observer.
Three general questions
should be answered
What are we talking about?
How can we study it?
How does it work?
Previous Approaches to
Creativity Definition
Earliest definitions of creativity focus on the
creative process.
John Watson’s definition is perhaps remarkable：
“How the new comes into being: One natural
question often raised is : How do we ever get new
verbal creations such as a poem or a brilliant essay?
The answer is that we get them by manipulating
words, shifting them about until a new pattern is
hit upon.”
Previous Approaches to
Creativity Definition
Koestler(1964) proposed creativity involves a
“bisociative process”-the deliberate connecting
of two previously unrelated “matrices of
thought” to produce a new insight or invention.
Most explicit definitions have used the creative
product as the distinguishing sign of creativity.
Barron (1955) proposed to be judged as
“original”-particular group being studied and
to some extent adaptive to reality.
Previous approaches to creativity
measurement
Most empirical work on creativity has
employed one of three assessment
techniques.
An objective analysis of products.
Subjective judgments of products or
persons as creative.
Vast majority-used creativity tests.
Creativity Test (I)
Personality test-from creativity scales
Gough’s(1957)-California Psychological
Inventory
Cattell & Eber’s(1968)-Sixteen Personality
Factor Questionnaire
Gough & Heilbrun’s(1965)-Adjective Check
List
Heist & Yonge’s(1968)-Omnibus Personality
Inventory
Personality inventories
To assess traits characteristic of creative
individuals
“How Do You Think?” test
GIFT-“Group Inventory for Finding Creative
Talent”
“What Kind of Person Are You?” test
The first group of personality tests
Gough’s(1979) -Creative Personality Scale for
the Adjective Check List
12 samples came from in a variety fields
1,701 subjects had already assessed by
experts
300 adjectives that make up the full selfreport ACL
30 items-18 were positively related to
creativity, and 12 were negatively weighted.
Typical of Personality tests
Torrance & Khatena’s(1970)-”What Kind
of Person Are you?”
Subjects select adjectives to describe
with in a forced choice format.
High creative individuals describe：
altruistic rather than courteous
curious rather than self-confident
self-starting rather than obedient
Creativity Test(II)
Biographical inventories-an intuitive
basis and rated (high, low or average)
Alpha Biographical Inventory-includes
several hundred items
The Biographical Inventory- creativity
includes 165 items into five categories
50-item biographical inventory made
from Taylor(1963)
Creativity Test (III)
Behavioral assessment-similar as traditional
intelligence tests.
Model for many creativity tests-Guilford’s
structure -of-intellect theory
Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT)
= Minnesota Tests of Creative Thinking
Torrance Test of Creativity Thinking
Oral, written, or drawn responses
It can be scored separately by category
Teachers given the tests in a group to children
Four criterion components : fluency, flexibility,
elaboration, originality
Three categories : nonverbal tests, verbal tests
using nonverbal stimuli, verbal tests using
verbal stimuli
Other Creativity Tests
Wallach & Kogan tests include five subscales：
Instances, Alternate Uses, Similarities, Pattern
Meaning, Line Meaning
Ghiselin, et. al.- Creative Process Checklistdesigned to assess states of attention and affect
in scientists at the moment of invention
Creative Person
What does it mean when someone
scores high (or low) on a creativity test?
Is it appropriate to consider high scores
as “creative person”?
Environmental influences on
test performance (I)
Various social and environmental factors
can influence test outcomes.
The study of Speller & Schumacher (1975)
The study of Manske & Davis (1968)
The study of Gough & Heilbrun (1965)
Suggestion of Wallach & Kogan(1965)
Environmental influences on
test performance (II)
Difference tests sores under different conditions
and time constraints
The study of Higgins & Chairs (1980)
Social and environmental influences on creativity
are unlikely explained by single theoretical
construct.
Do not only assess stable individual differences in
creative abilities and attitudes.
Differences, social and contextual factor may play
a crucial role in performance.
A Critique of Creativity Tests (I)
Some creative problems could hamper any
empirical application.
Construct validity of many tests has been
questioned.
Creativity tests assess narrow ranges of
abilities.
Subjective scoring procedures in many of
the creativity tests.
A Critique of Creativity Tests (II)
Several reasons in criticisms of tests.
Investigations of individual differences.
Social-psychological factors influence
performance on test.
Validity problems of the tests used.
Objective Analysis of Products
Objective analysis of products used only
infrequently to assess creativity.
The study of Simonton(1980)
This methodology has a clear operational
definition.
The assessment of creativity can’t be achieved
by objective analysis alone.
Subjective Judgments (I)
The subjective assessment of person or
products as creative has a much longer history.
Galton ‘s(1870) Hereditary Genius
The study of Castle (1913)
The study of Cox (1926)
The study of J. Cattell (1903)
The study of Roe (1952)
The study of Simonton (1977)
Three dimensions of ratings
Some studies use subjective judgments of a
particular product’s creativity such as Sobel
and Rothenberg(1980) that given three
dimensions to make rating:
Originality of sketches
Value of sketches
Overall creative potential of the art product
Subjective Judgments (II)
Still unanswered question about the use of
subjective judgments.
Do judges man when they call something
“creative”?
What features of products predict their
response?
What phenomenological response states lead
them to apply that label?
Subjective Judgments (III)
The study of Jackson & Messick (1965)
suggested outstanding creativity composed of
four aesthetic responses : surprise,
satisfaction, stimulation, savoring.
But there is little empirical work on their
scheme.
It has been demonstrated that judges can
rate products according to “transformational
power.”
Subjective Judgments (IV)
Many of the previously used subjective assessment
methodologies present difficulties：
Subjective assessment procedures fail to differentiate
between the creativity of the products and other
construct.
The meaning of interjudge reliabilty can be questioned
in studies.
Previous subjective assessment methodologies might be
inappropriate for use in social psychological research.
Subjective Judgments (IV)
Those assessment procedures judges rate single
products may be too sensitive to large and
stable individual differences in performance.
The influence for domain-relevant and
creativity-relevant skills can be controlled or
eliminated.
Many researchers using subjective assessment
fall prey to a difficulty also encountered by
those using creativity tests.
Subjective Judgments (V)
Methods as creative are not widely
applicable, and cannot be used as sole
indicators of creativity.
Most of these tests are ill-suited to socialpsychological research because of their
sensitivity to individuals differences.
A Consensual Definition of Creativity (I)
An explicitly operational definition that
implicitly underlies most subjective
assessment methodologies.
Most current definitions of creativity, the
consensual definition is based on the
creative product.
The identification of thought process or
subprocess as creative must depend on the
fruit of that process-a product or response.
A Consensual Definition of Creativity
(II)
Several assumptions are made about the nature of
creativity and creativity judgment:
Products or observable responses must be the
hallmark of creativity.
Creativity in a product may be difficult to
characterize in terms of features, and phenomenology
of observer’s responses to creative products clearly.
One basic form of creativity and quality of products.
Observers can say with an acceptable level of
agreement the degree of creativity.
A Conceptual Definition
of Creativity (I)
Conceptual definition of creativity
comprises two essential elements:
Both a novel and appropriate, useful,
correct or valuable response to the task at
hand.
The task is heuristic rather than
algorithmic.
A Conceptual Definition
of Creativity (II)
Typically defined, algorithmic tasks are
those for which the path to the solution is
clear and straightforward.
For heuristic tasks, the path to the solution
is not completely straightforward.
That may be considered either algorithmic
or heuristic, depend on the particular goal
and the level of knowledge of the performer.
A Conceptual Definition
of Creativity (III)
The determination of the label “algorithmic”
or “heuristic” depends on the individual
performer’s knowledge about the task.
The specification of tasks as algorithmic or
heuristic raises an important question about
the assessment of creativity.
Creativity judges must have information
about the creator.
A Conceptual Definition
of Creativity (IV)
In presenting the consensual definition that
assessment of creativity must be culturally
and historically bound.
the operational and conceptual definitions
are closely related, although they are
different function.
It is not yet possible to specify objectively
“novelty” or “appropriateness” or
“straightforwardness” with any generality.
Update
Morries Stein’s (1953) definition of creativity
as “that process which results in a novel work
that is accepted as tenable or satisfying by a
group at some point in time.”
This definition combines two of the key
elements of conceptual definition of creativitynovelty, and acceptability or appropriateness.
Update
Original edition: there was no direct tie
between conceptual and operational
definitions of creativity.
The conceptual definition rests on
assumptions about what observers are
responding to when they identify a product
as highly creative.
The study of Phillips (1993) – a start data
Update
It’s important to reiterate assumptions that
served as foundations for original
definitions, and other theorists has asserted
the utility of the same assumption.
There often appears to be a discontinuity in
the creativity of products.
Even products that differ enormously in
their creativity levels could arise from the
same basic underlying process.
Update
In understanding the social psychological
conditions that can foster or inhibit creativity.
Creativity tests were unsuitable for most
social psychological research on creativity,
and might be unsuitable for most purposes.
It appears that many researchers are
beginning to favor reliable subjective
assessments of the creativity of products.