User:Insecuremamahen/sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is about the social psychology of creativity. For other uses, see Creativity.

Creativity in Social Psychology[edit]

The Three Component Model of Creativity (Amabile, 1996)[1]

Creativity is the "use of imagination or original ideas to create something; inventiveness."[2] The concept of creativity has a presence within society that impacts culture as highlighted in the arts, sciences, technology as well as political endeavour.[3] Studies within this discipline have demonstrated that creativity in everyday life is beneficial due to providing "opportunities for self-actualisation."[4] This is exhibited in students where engagement of participation in creative activities while learning results in a greater sense of personal growth in comparison to non-creative students. [4]

The research into creativity is designated to the psychological branch of social psychology. Creativity in Social Psychology is an area that studies how social and environmental factors affect behaviour in terms of creative performance. This theory proposed by Teresa Amabile, explains that naturally occurring social environments have an effect on the creative behaviour of an individual.[1] The Three Component Model of Creativity illustrates that creative behaviour is influenced by three main factors of expertise, creative thinking skills and task motivation.[1] Intrinsic orientation is the motivation of self interest in tasks.[5] Aspects of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation,[1] quality of work,[6] rewards,[6] challenges[7] and satisfaction[8] are all elements within motivation that can enhance creativity.[1] There is also evidence from correlation in creativity research from 1996 that reveals that early exposure to factors of cultural diversity as well as individual familial relationships results in variation of creativity levels in adults.[1]

Level of creativity is analysed through the social perspectives of motivation, reward, educational environment as well as how sociocultural relationships influence creative processes.[1] The scientific analysis of these findings allow for the development of this branch of psychology.

History[edit]

Francis Galton in the 1850s

Francis Galton first published a series of works highlighting how creative individuals have "unique qualities of intellect and personality that differentiated this group from their less creative peers".[9] J.P. Guildford later published a journal providing emphasis on how individual difference variables result in higher levels of creativity.[9] These statements resulted in researchers analysing creative persons as well as the creative process in relation to cognitive skills.[9] Analysis through various approaches; psychoanalytic perspective, psychometric approach, cognitive, social-psychological and neurobiological[3] have been used to study the dispositional causes of creativity.[10]

Creativity Measurement and Definition[edit]

The various approaches to study creativity has allowed for diverse research in a variety of research paradigms.[3] The analysis of creativity in individuals is currently attributed and researched through "dispositional causes rather than situational".[10] This is due to the lack of a clear creative definition as well as the diversity in interpretation of creative works.[3] Several suggestions include criteria that identify features of creativity, observers with expertise judging creative works as well as some psychologists concluding that creativity cannot be defined.[1] Teresa Amabile outlines that current empirical work surrounding the concept has been focused on three assessment techniques.[1]

Three Assessment Techniques[edit]

Creative Tests[edit]

One method of assessment is a creativity test which comprises of research on personality, biological history and behaviour.[1] Personality tests are the examination of the shared characteristics of a person in comparison to previously studied creative individuals. This test is completed through the selection of adjectives that describe ones self resulting in the determination of "What Kind of Person Are you?"[1] Childhood history, interests, hobbies, education and physical characteristics are also noted. In addition, individual descriptions of an object is given a uniqueness score which is then correlated to level of creativity.[1] These three components result in the conclusion of level of creativity present in an individual.[1]

Objective Analysis of Products[edit]

The second possible method of creativity assessment is through objective analysis of creative works. This method is through the analysis of intrinsic quality in products with reference to standardise criteria.[1] As creativity is interpreted differently per expert, subjective analysis is also required in order to make an accurate measure of creativity.[1]

Subjective Assessment[edit]

The third technique to measure creativity is use of subjective assessment. Experts within the discipline of creativity analyse pieces through comparisons in the subject group. These comparisons determine individual creative potential and level.[1]

Consensual Definition for Creativity[edit]

Creativity is defined by the final products created by individuals, which is determined by two criteria:

  1. The product must be original - unique and different from other previous works[10]
  2. It must be regarded as creative by those who are familiar with the discipline[1]

The consensual definition of creativity regards to the final product created rather than individual characteristics and dispositional factors.[1]

Consensual Technique in Measurement of Creativity[edit]

Determining creativity level in adults is through the use of heuristic tasks. Heuristic processes do not have a defined path or goal in comparison to algorithmic tasks which have clear solutions.[11] Problem solving that occurs during a heuristic task is a key aspect that fosters creativity.[1] These tasks allow for the creativity level of an individual to be assessed.[1] The measurement of creativity also takes note of the cultural and historical background of each individual which may influence knowledge and cognitive processes.[1]

The heuristic tasks for assessment of creativity must meet a number of criteria:[1]

  1. The task must lead to a product or observable response that can be judged
  2. The task should be open-ended - allowing for flexibility in responses
  3. Task is not dependent on special skills like drawing ability and fluency in a language

The judges that are assessing the products must also meet criteria:[1]

  1. Experience in the domain
  2. Judgements of individual works are made independently
  3. Culture and historical background are recorded in order to determine social-environmental effects
  4. Products are rated against one another, not against a standardised criteria which may be used for those who are experienced
  5. Products created are seen in random order

Ratings across the judges are cross-checked to ensure reliability.[1] These objective judgments that should be separated from judgements of technical goodness and aesthetic appeal determine the creativity level in individuals.[1]

Social and Environmental Influences[edit]

Influences on the creative behaviour of an individual vary and are inclusive of factors of motivation, environment and social upbringing.[1]

Motivation[edit]

Intrinsic motivations primary features are defined as optimal level tasks[1] that are enjoyable[12] and allow for a sense of competence and mastery.[13] Sense of control over a heuristic task is one other feature that also influences motivation.[14] Research surrounding impacts of motivation demonstrate that products created with intrinsic motivation are significantly more creative than products created with extrinsic motivation.[15]

Reward[edit]

The behaviour of creativity defies effort and cannot be achieved just by the act of trying.[1] Difficulties in the creation of creative pieces arise when individuals are motivated through extrinsic motivation, attempting to meet the demands of others or are trying for the wrong reasons.[1] Direct external factors such as reward as well as a lack of choice in how to engage in an activity, all impact task engagement and control individual creative behaviour.[1]

It is suggested that reward underlies intrinsic motivation and can influence behaviour under certain conditions.[16] Skinner outlines that reinforcement is at the heart of behavioural control; desired behaviours that are rewarded will increase the likelihood of those behaviours occurring.[17] Under non-rewarded conditions however, there is a decreased likelihood of the desired behaviour occurring again.[18] Reward can also decrease the enjoyment of the creative process.[18]

The self-perception theory demonstrates that individuals in over justified conditions may not have the awareness of their intrinsic interest a task.[19] Therefore, individual performance is due to extrinsic motivation where individuals are persuaded to meet the demands of the environment.[1] The undermining effects of motivation, reward and constraints from environmental demands can also affect the immediate performance of creativity in an individual.[1] Hence, the environment also has a role in behaviour and can result in different creative outcomes.[1]

Expected reward is another aspect that may influence creative behaviour due to impacting an individual's initial approach to a task.[1] It is highlighted in both studies of Shapira (1976) and Pittman, Emery, & Boggiano (1982) that without rewards individuals choose to complete complex tasks in comparison to those with expected rewards choosing simpler versions.[20] Expected reward conditions also result in participants' interest decreasing over time.[21] In addition to decreased intrest, the quality of final products in the reward condition is lower than products created by non-rewarded individuals.[21]

The diminish of interest in tasks was investigated by Lepper, Sagotsky, Dafoe, & Greene (1982). The study revealed that offering people a choice, where individuals perceive themselves as choosing to participate in an activity results in the adoption of extrinsic motivational orientation.[22] If presented with no choice and are told will be rewarded regardless of products individuals have more interest in the activity.[23]

Choice Aspect[edit]

Choice of engagement in a task may have effects on creativity which is dependent on absence or presence of expected reward.[1] Individuals who choose to engage in tasks with rewards have lower levels of creativity than those who engage with no choice at all.[1] It is demonstrated that choice concerning task engagement may result in decreased or increased levels of creativity in the individual.[1] The choices individuals have on how to complete a task, with non-rewarded individuals choosing more complex processes can result in enhanced intrinsic interest.[1] The enhance interest an individual has in an activity has a positive relationship with the overall creativity presented in the final product.[1]

Performance Enhancement[edit]

Another aspect that can enhance creative behaviour are social factors within society. Social Facilitation increases creative behaviour where the presence of sight and sound of others completing the same task will result in an enhanced response.[24] The Zajonc theory outlines that social facilitation in the presence of other organisms increases general arousal which energises dominant responses.[25] If these responses are applicable and useful to the task of creativity then performance will be enhanced.[25] Research surrounding social facilitation illustrates that the presence of peers, family members or an audience will enhance the performance of well-learned and simple tasks.[1] However, this presence will impair individual performance of poorly learned or complex tasks.[1] Evaluation is another factor that influences performance. Open-ended activities that are worked on individually in the presence of others have minimal impact unless there is presence of evaluation[1]. The feelings of evaluation undermine the process of creativity, impacting an individual's final product.[1] It is also highlighted that collaboration and group work in creative tests decrease the creativity of individual performance.[1] When individuals work together to solve a task, fewer solutions are produced.[1]

Educational Environments[edit]

Peer pressure in a classroom is a factor that also undermines creative behaviour. The increased tendencies for individuals to conform with peers reduce the willingness of exploration in alternative pathways and solutions.[26] A teacher's beliefs and attitudes can also have a direct impact on the creative behaviour of a student.[27] Teachers who have beliefs in student autonomy result in individual preference for challenges, curiosity as well as independence.[27] Furthermore, individualised instruction allows for the development of intrinsic motivation in students.[27] The encouragement of independence in individuals from teachers is more conductive to creativity in comparison to traditional classrooms.[1]

Work Environments[edit]

Work environments with minimal extrinsic constraints, interference from peers and concern for problems of unemployment and stress are most beneficial in creative behaviour.[1]

Family Relationships[edit]

It is demonstrated that parents that are personally secure and are not concerned with conforming to societal norms or rules of status have children who are more creative.[1] Encouragement and support allow for the fostering of creative development in young individuals.[1] Support from role models within the field can also allow for earlier creative achievement resulting in higher level of creativity in adults.[1]

Implications[edit]

Creativity can be enhanced through the development of skills that can be stimulated through intrinsic motivation.[1] Direct training that focuses on increased cognitive methods as well as social and environmental influences are other factors which allow for development of creative behaviour in individuals.[1] Current research surrounding social influences and how creativity impacts society is being developed to allow for a more comprehensive theoretical model of creativity.[1]

References[edit]

  1. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag ah ai aj ak al am an ao ap aq ar as at au av aw ax ay az ba Amabile, Teresa M. (1996). Creativity in context : update to The social psychology of creativity. Westview Press. ISBN 0813328276. OCLC 36351665.
  2. ^ "creativity | Definition of creativity in English by Oxford Dictionaries". Oxford Dictionaries | English. Retrieved 2019-05-12.
  3. ^ a b c d Batey, Mark (2012). "The Measurement of Creativity: From Definitional Consensus to the Introduction of a New Heuristic Framework". Creativity Research Journal. 24 (1): 55–65. doi:10.1080/10400419.2012.649181. ISSN 1040-0419.
  4. ^ a b "Everyday Creativity". Psychology Today. Retrieved 2019-05-12.
  5. ^ Amabile, Teresa M. (1985). "Motivation and creativity: Effects of motivational orientation on creative writers". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 48 (2): 393–397. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.48.2.393. ISSN 0022-3514.
  6. ^ a b Frese, Michael; Fay, Doris (2001). "4. Personal initiative: An active performance concept for work in the 21st century". Research in Organizational Behavior. 23: 133–187. doi:10.1016/s0191-3085(01)23005-6. ISSN 0191-3085.
  7. ^ Paulus, Paul (2000). "Groups, Teams, and Creativity: The Creative Potential of Idea‐generating Groups". Applied Psychology. 49 (2): 237–262. doi:10.1111/1464-0597.00013. ISSN 0269-994X.
  8. ^ Oldham, G. R.; Cummings, A. (1996-06-01). "EMPLOYEE CREATIVITY: PERSONAL AND CONTEXTUAL FACTORS AT WORK". Academy of Management Journal. 39 (3): 607–634. doi:10.2307/256657. ISSN 0001-4273.
  9. ^ a b c Hennessey, Beth A. (2003-09-25), "Is the Social Psychology of Creativity Really Social?", Group Creativity, Oxford University Press, pp. 181–201, ISBN 9780195147308, retrieved 2019-05-15
  10. ^ a b c Kasof, Joseph (1995). "Explaining Creativity: The Attributional Perspective". Creativity Research Journal. 8 (4): 311–366. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj0804_1. ISSN 1040-0419.
  11. ^ Bandlow, Ray John (1976). "Theories of Learning, 4th Edition. By Ernest R. Hilgard and Gordon H. Bower. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1975". NASSP Bulletin. 60 (400): 134–134. doi:10.1177/019263657606040024. ISSN 0192-6365.
  12. ^ Hebb, Elizabeth (1955-02-15). "Disintegration ofTe131". Physical Review. 97 (4): 987–990. doi:10.1103/physrev.97.987. ISSN 0031-899X.
  13. ^ HARTER, M. RUSSELL (1978). "The Potentials of the Brain: Progress in Clinical Neurophysiology". Contemporary Psychology: A Journal of Reviews. 23 (10): 717–718. doi:10.1037/016542. ISSN 0010-7549.
  14. ^ Decharms, Richard; Carpenter, Virginia (1968). "Measuring Motivation in Culturally Disadvantaged School Children". The Journal of Experimental Education. 37 (1): 31–41. doi:10.1080/00220973.1968.11011086. ISSN 0022-0973.
  15. ^ Amabile, Teresa M. (1985). "Motivation and creativity: Effects of motivational orientation on creative writers". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 48 (2): 393–399. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.48.2.393. ISSN 1939-1315.
  16. ^ Decharms, Richard; Carpenter, Virginia (1968). "Measuring Motivation in Culturally Disadvantaged School Children". The Journal of Experimental Education. 37 (1): 31–41. doi:10.1080/00220973.1968.11011086. ISSN 0022-0973.
  17. ^ Ingvarsson, Einar T.; Morris, Edward K. (2004). "Post-skinnerian, post-skinner, or neo-skinnerian? Hayes, Barnes-Holmes, and Roche's". The Psychological Record. 54 (4): 497–504. doi:10.1007/bf03395488. ISSN 0033-2933.
  18. ^ a b Deci, Edward L. (1971). "Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 18 (1): 105–115. doi:10.1037/h0030644. ISSN 0022-3514.
  19. ^ Bern, Sandra; Bern, Daryl (1972). "Training the Woman to Know Her Place". PsycEXTRA Dataset. Retrieved 2019-05-25.
  20. ^ Pittman, Thane S.; Emery, Jolee; Boggiano, Ann K. (1982). "Intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations: Reward-induced changes in preference for complexity". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 42 (5): 789–797. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.42.5.789. ISSN 0022-3514.
  21. ^ a b Greene, David; Lepper, Mark R. (1974). "Intrinsic motivation: How to turn play into work". PsycEXTRA Dataset. Retrieved 2019-05-25.
  22. ^ Lepper, Mark R.; Sagotsky, Gerald; Dafoe, Janet L.; Greene, David (1982). "Consequences of superfluous social constraints: Effects on young children's social inferences and subsequent intrinsic interest". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 42 (1): 51–65. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.42.1.51. ISSN 0022-3514.
  23. ^ Folger, Robert; Rosenfield, David; Hays, Robert; Grove, Robert (1978). "Justice vs justification effects on productivity: Reconciling equity and dissonance findings". Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 22 (3): 465–473. doi:10.1016/0030-5073(78)90028-4. ISSN 0030-5073.
  24. ^ ALLPORT, GORDON W. (1924). "EIDETIC IMAGERY". British Journal of Psychology. General Section. 15 (2): 99–120. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.1924.tb00168.x. ISSN 0373-2460.
  25. ^ a b Zajonc, R. B. (1965-07-16). "Social Facilitation". Science. 149 (3681): 269–274. doi:10.1126/science.149.3681.269. ISSN 0036-8075.
  26. ^ Torrance, E. Paul (2012-07-09). "Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking". PsycTESTS Dataset. Retrieved 2019-05-26.
  27. ^ a b c Deci, Edward L.; Nezlek, John; Sheinman, Louise (1981). "Characteristics of the rewarder and intrinsic motivation of the rewardee". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 40 (1): 1–10. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.40.1.1. ISSN 0022-3514.


Category:Behavioural sciences Category:Branches of psychology

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Insecuremamahen/sandbox&oldid=899656635"