The nature of creativity

This article was downloaded by:

[Blekinge Institute of Technology, Infocenter]On:

6 February 2011Access details:

Access Details: [subscription number 789348680]Publisher

RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UKCreativity Research JournalPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:/smpp/title~content=t775653635The Nature of CreativityRobert J. SternbergOnline publication date: 08 June 2010To cite this Article Sternberg, Robert J.(2006) 'The Nature of Creativity', Creativity Research Journal, 18: 1, 87 — 98To link to this Article: DOI:

10.1207/s15326934crj1801_10URL:

/10.1207/s15326934crj1801_10

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLEFull terms and conditions of use: /s article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Creativity Research JournalCopyright ©2006by2006, Vol.18, No.1,87–98Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Nature of CreativityRobert ergTufts UniversityABSTRACT:rrance,mycolleaguesforthepretensionstowhichless-distinguishedaca-andIhavetriedtounderstandthenatureofcreativ-demics can be so ,toassessit,andtoimproveinstructionbyteach-Thereareanumberofdifferentapproachesonecaningforcreativticlereviewsotivity,,Sternberg,Kaufman,&tions,andsomeofthedatawehavecollectedwithre-Pretz,2002;Sternberg&Lubart,1995,1996)describesthepropulsionchosentousy,heoriesarepartofaThefieldofcreativityasitexiststodayemergedlargelymoregeneraltheory—WICS—ofwisdom,rdgence, and creativity synthesized (Sternberg, 2003b).(1950)rrance(1962,1974).ItiswhollyfittingtodedicateaspecialissueoftheCreativityRe-searchJournaltoTorrancebecauseofhisseminalcon-The Investment Theory of day,theTorranceTestsofCreativeThinking(Torrance,1974)Ourinvestmenttheoryofcreativity(Sternberg&remainthemostwidelyusedassessmentsofcreativeLubart,1991,1995)hcreativepeoplearethosewhoarewillingandGuilfordandTorrancehadmanymoreagreementsableto“buylowandsellhigh”intherealmofideasthandisagreementsaboutthenatureofcreativityand(seealsoRubenson&Runco,1992,rebasicallyceptsfromeconomictheory).Buyinglowmeanspur-psychometrictheoristsandconceivedofandattemptedsuingideasthatareunknownorr,bothwerebroadthinkers,andtheirconcep-tionsweremuchmoreexpansivethanthePreparationofthisarticlewassupportedbyGrantREC–9979843operationalizationsoftheseconceptionsthroughtheincentratedondivergentthinkingastheActProgram(GrantNo.R206R000001)asadministeredbytheIn-basisofcreativityanddevisedteststhatemphasizedstituteofEducationSciences,ftbehindGranteesundertakingsuchprojectsareencouragedtoexpresstheirnumeroussticle,therefore,doesnotneces-sarice,inparticular,wasawarm,car-Foundation,InstituteofEducationSciences,menting,monlyafewtimes,of Education, and no official endorsement should be senormouslyimpressedwiththemodestyheCorrespondenceandrequestsforreprintsshouldbesenttoRob-displayed,erg,DeanoftheSchoolofArtsandSciences,TuftsUni-versity,BallouHall,Medford,MA02155.E-mail:ergshowedthatthebestpeopleinthefieldhavenoneed@ativity Research Journal87Downloaded

By:

[Blekinge

Institute

of

Technology,

Infocenter]

At:

19:40

6

February

2011

R. J. ,whentheseideasarefirstpredictfuturestatesfrompaststates,givenincompletepresented,hersetofstudies,60peoplewerevidualpersistsinthefaceofthisresistanceandeventu-givenmoreconventionalkindsofinductivereasoningallysellshigh,movingontothenextneworunpopularproblems,suchasanalogies,seriescompletions,fications,r,theproblemshadpremisesprecedingthemthatwereei-Aspects of the Investment Theorytherconventional(dancerswearshoes)ornovel(danc-erseatshoes).Theparticipantshadtosolvetheprob-Accordingtotheinvestmenttheory,creativityre-lemsasthoughthecounterfactualsweretrue(Sternbergquiresaconfluenceofsixdistinctbutinterrelatedre-&Gastel,1989a,1989b).sources:intellectualabilities,knowledge,stylesofInthesestudies,wefoundthatcorrelationswiththinking,personality,motivation,tionalkindsoftestsdependedonhownovelorAlthoughlevelsoftheseevidualdifferences,oftenthedecisiontousearesourcenoveltheitems,thehigherthswithscoresonsuccessivelymorenovelconven-thefollowingsections,,thecomponentsisolatedforrela-role of decision making in novelitemswou,Intellectual ntellectualskillsarethatofCattell&Cattell,1973)thanwithtestsofparticularlyimportant(Sternberg,1985):(a)foundthatwhenre-theticskilltoseeproblemsinnewwaysandtoescapesponsetimesontherelativelynovelproblemsweretheboundsofconventionalthinking,(b)theanalyticcomponentiallyanalyzed,somecomponentsbetterskilltorecognizewhichofone’sideasareworthpursu-measuredthecreativeaspectofintelligencethandidingandwhicharenot,and(c)thepractical–mple,inthe“grue–bleen”taskmen-skilltoknowhowtopersuadeothersof—tosellothertionedearlier,theinformation-processingcomponentpeopleon—thevalueofone’fluenceofrequiriicskillsusedgreen–bluethinkingtogrue–bleenthinkingandthenintheabsenceoftheothertwoskillsresultsinpower-backtogreen–bluethinkingagainwasaparticularlyfulcritical,butnotcreative,theabsenceoftheothertwoskillsresultsinInanotherstudy,welookedatpredictionsforev-newideasthatarenotsubjectedtothescrutinyrequirederydaykindsofsituations,cal–con-spoil(Sternberg&Kalmar,1997).Inthisstudy,wetextualskillintheabsenceoftheothertwoskillsmaylookedatbothpredictionsandpostdictions(hypothe-resultinsocietalacceptanceofideasnotbecausethesesaboutthepastwhereinformationaboutthepastisideasaregood,butrather,becausetheideashavebeenunknown)andfoundthatpostdictionstooklongertowell and powerfully redictionsandWetestedtheroleofcreativeintelligenceincreativ-ptudy,hnovelkindsofreasoningproblemsthathmple,theymightbetoldthatcilitatedwhenpeoplearewillingtoputinup-fronttimesomeobjectsaregreenandothersblue;dthatbetterthinkersjectsmightbegrue,meaninggreenuntiltheyear2000tendtospendrelativelymoretimethandopoorerrea-andbluethereafter,orbleen,meaningblueuntiltheyearsonersinglobal,mightbetoldoffourwhentheysolvedifficult,fpeopleontheplanetKyron—blens,whoarePoorerreasoners,conversely,tendtospendrelativelybornyounganddieyoung;kwefs,whoarebornoldandmoretimeinlocalplanning(Sternberg,1981).Pre-dieold;balts,whoarebornyounganddieold;andsumably,thebetterthinkersrecognizethatitisbettertoprosses,whoarebornoldanddieyoung(Sternberg,investmoretimeupfrontsoastobeabletoprocessa1982;Tetewsky&Sternberg,1986).Theirtaskwastoproblem more efficiently later on.88Creativity Research JournalDownloaded

By:

[Blekinge

Institute

of

Technology,

Infocenter]

At:

19:40

6

February

2011

The Nature of nehand,oneneedstoknow1991,1995)haveovebeyondwhereafieldisifonedoesnotknowattributesinclude,butarenotlimitedto,therhand,knowledgeaboutafieldovercomeobstacles,willingnesstotakesensiblerisks,canresultinaclosedandentrenchedperspective,re-willingnesstotolerateambiguity,inginaperson’snotmovingbeyondthewayinparticular,buyinglowa-defyingthecrowd,sothatonehastobewillingtostandedge thus can help, or it can hinder nventionsifonewantstothinkandactincre-Inastudyofexpertandnovicebridgeplayers,forativeways(Sternberg,2003a;Sternberg&Lubart,example(Frensch&Sternberg,1989),wefoundthat1995).Oftencreativepeopleseekopposition;thatis,expertsoutperformednovicesunderregatnoneoftheattributesofcreativesurfacestructureofthegame,decidetoovercomeobsta-werebothhurtslightlyintheirplaying,buttheycles, take sensible risks, and so rofound,deep-structuralInonestudy(Lubart&Sternberg,1995),wefoundchangewasmadeinthestructureofthegame,theex-thatgreaterrisk-takingpropensitywasassociatedwithpertsinitiallywerehurtmorethanthenovices,son,presumably,isthatvestigatedwhythiswasso,wefoundthatsomeevalua-expertsmakemoreanddeeperuseoftheexistingstruc-torstendedtomarkdownessaysthattookuned,therefore,thatoneoftherisksthannovicesdowhenthereisadeep-structuralchangepeoplefacewhentheyarecreative,,oneneedstodecidetomentonrisktaking,isthattheevaluatorswillnotap-use one’s past te the risks if they go against their own beliefs!Thinking sic,task-focusedmotivationiswaysofusingone’nce,earchofAmabilesionsabouthowtodeploytheskillsavailabletoaper-(1983)gardtothinkingstyles,alegislativestyleismotivationforcreativeworkandhassuggestedthatparticularlyimportantforcreativity(Sternberg,1988,peoplerarelydotrulycreativeworkinanareaunless1997a),thatis,apreferenceforthinkingandadecitionistinguishedfromtheabilitytothinkcreatively:Some-notsomethinginherentinaperson:Onedecidestobeonemayliketothinkalongnewlines,,peoplewhowell,helpstobecomeamajorcre-needtoworkinacertainareathatdoesnotparticularlyativethinker,ifoneisabletothinkgloballyaswellasinterestthemwilldecidethat,giventheneedtoworkinlocally,distinguishingtheforestfromthetreesandthatarea,theyhadbetterfindawaytomallthenlookforsomeangleontheworkwhich ones are edtodothatmakesthisworkappealtoratherInourresearch(Sternberg,1997b;Sternberg&than bore enko,1995),wefoundthatlegislativepeopletendtobebetterstudentsthanlesslegislativepeople,y,sdonotvalueordevaluecreativity,theytentsalsowerefoundtoreceivethinkcreatively,butwithoutsomeenvironmentalsup-highergradesfromteacherswhoseownstylesofthink-port(suchasaforumforproposingthoseideas),theing matched their vitythatapersonhaswithinhimorhermightnever be usresearchinvestigationsEnvironmentstypicallyarenotfullysupportiveof(summarizedinLubart,1994,andSternberg&Lubart,theuseofone’taclesinagivenen-Creativity Research Journal89Downloaded

By:

[Blekinge

Institute

of

Technology,

Infocenter]

At:

19:40

6

February

2011

R. J. Sternbergvironmentmaybeminor,asnegativefeedbackonhisorhercreativethink-ToniMorrison’sTarBabyreceivednegativereviewsing,ormajor,aswhenone’swell-beingorevenlifearewhenitwasfirstpublished,asdidSylviaPlath’ividualthereforemustdecidehowtore-NorwegianpainterEdvardMunchopenedandclosedspondinthefaceofthenearlyomnipresentenviron-thesamthegreatestscientificarticlesunfavorableforcesintheenvironmentblocktheircre-havebeenrejectednotjustbyonebutbyseveraljour-ative output; others do mple,JohnGarcia,Partoftheenvironmentisdeterminedbywhoisdo-adistinguishedbiopsychologist,tudies(Lubart&Sternberg,nouncedwhenhefirstproposedthataformoflearning1995),wehadcreativeproductsofpeopleofdifferentcalledclassicalconditioningcouldbeproducedinaagesratedfortheircreativitybyratersofdifferentagesingle trial of learning (Garcia & Koelling, 1966).dinformalevidenceofcohortmatch-Fromtheinvestmentview,then,thecreativepersoning—thatis,raterstendedtorateasmorecreativebuyslowbypresentinganideathathenattemptingtoconvinceotherpeopleofitsForexample,onvincingothersthattheideaisvaluable,larmusicofthegenerationinwhichtheygrewupaswhichincreasestheperceivedvalueoftheinvestment,earlyadolescentsmorethanthepopularmusicofthethecreativepersonsellshighbyletypicallyThus,partofwhatmaydeterminegrowthpatternsofwantotherstolovetheirideas,butimmediateuniversalcreativity(Simonton,1994)isinchangingcriteriaforapplauseforanideaoftenindicatesthatitisnotpartic-evaluations of creativity on the part of ningtheconfluenceofthesesixcomponents,creativityishypothesizedtoinvolveThe Role of Decision Makingmorethanasimplesumofaperson’sleveloneachCreativity,accordingtotheinvestmenttheory,,,knowledge)isnotpossibleregardlessofthelevels,partialcompensationmayoccurinthemmorecre,motivation)becreativewillber,(O’Hara & Sternberg, 2000–2001).environment).Third,interactionsmayoccurbetweenTobecreativeonemustfirstdecidetogeneratenewcomponents,suchasintelligenceandmotivation,inideas,analyzetheseideas,ighlevelsonbothcomponentscouldInotherwords,apersonmayhavesynthetic,analyti-multiplicatively enhance ,orpracticalskilmple,oneever,theyareoftenrejectedwhenthecreativeinnova-maydecide(a)tofollowotherpeople’sideasrathertorstandsuptovestedinterestsanddefiesthecrowdthansynthesizeone’sown,(b)nottosubjectone’s(entmihalyi,1988).Thecrowddoesnotma-ideastoacarefulevaluation,or(c),itpletolistentoone’sideasandthereforedecidenottodoesnotrealize,andoftendoesnotwanttorealize,posedidearepresentsavalidandadvancedwayTheskillisnotenough:yoftenperceivesoppositiontothecision to use the quoasannoying,offensive,andreasonenoughForexample,abilitytoswitchbetweenconven-to ignore innovative andunconventionalmodesofthinkingisimectofswitchingbetweencon-jected(Sternberg&Lubart,1995).Initialreviewsofventionalandunconventionalthinkingisthedecision90Creativity Research JournalDownloaded

By:

[Blekinge

Institute

of

Technology,

Infocenter]

At:

19:40

6

February

2011

The Nature of CreativitythatoneiswillingandabletothinkinunconventionalAmericanandChineseevaluatorsratedtwodistinctways—thatoneiswillingtoacceptthinkingintermsartisticproducts(collagesandsciencefictioncharac-differentfromthosetowhichoneisaccustomedandters)ofshowreli-ativethanproductsofChinesecollegestudentsableindividualdifferencesinwillingnesstodosoroughlymatchedforconventionalintelligence(Niu&(Dweck,1999).Somepeople(whatDweckcalls“en-Sternberg,2001).Thisfindingheldupregardlessoftitytheorists”)prefertelyindomainsthatarereleople(whatDweckcalls“incrementalbemeasuredinawaythatisdistinctfromthewaytheorists”)seekoutnewchallengesandnewconcep-g-basedanalyticalskillsaremeasured,roposedapracticalskillsthat,togetherwiththeanalyticalandnumberofdifferentdecisionsbywhichonecande-creativeones,combineintomytheoryofsuccessfulin-velopone’sowncreativityasadecision(Sternberg,telligence.2001):(a)redefineproblems,(b)questionandanalyzeInonestudy(Sternberg,Grigorenko,Ferrari,&assumptions,(c)donotassumethatcreativeideassellClinkenbeard,1999),weusedtheso-calledSternbergthemselves:sellthem,(d)encouragethegenerationofTriarchicAbilitiesTest(STAT;Sternberg,1993)toin-ideas,(e)recognizethatknoindercreativity,(f)identifyandsurmountobstacles,hundredtwenty-sixhighschoolstudents,primarily(g)takesensiblerisks,(h)tolerateambiguity,(i)be-fromdiversepartsoftheUnitedStates,tookthetest,lieveinoneself(self-efficacy),(j)erefourtodo,(k)delaygratification,(l)role-modelcreativity,subtests,eachmeasuringanalytical,creative,andprac-(m)cross-fertilizeideas,(n)rewardcreativity,(o)htypeofability,therewerethreelowmistakes,(p)encouragecollaboration,(q)ti-thingsfromothers’pointsofview,(r)takeresponsibil-ple-choicetests,inturn,involved,respectively,verbal,ityforsuccessesandfailures,(s)maximizeperson–en-quantitative,erthecontentvironmentfit,(t) each test:Evidence Regarding the Investment ical–Verbal:Figuringoutmeaningsofne-ologisms(artificialwords)chwithintheinvestmentdentsseeanovelwordembeddedinaparagraphandframeworkhasyieldedsupportforthismodel(Lubarthave to infer its meaning from the context.&Sternberg,1995).ical–Quantitative:-as(a),dentshavetosaywhatnumbershouldcomenextinatheoctopus’sneakers),(b)drawingpictureswithun-series of ,theearthfromaninsect’ical–Figural:tsseeaview),(c),cufflinks),and(d)solvingunusual,nonthemoonwithinthepastmonth?).cal–Verbal:tsmeasureshavethesamegoalasTorrance’sdo,butwearepresentedwithasetofeverydayproblemsintheattempttousetasksthataremoreorientedtowardlifeofanadolescentandhavetoselecttheoptionthatwhatpeopledoinschoolandintherealworldwhenbest solves each cal–Quantitative:-performancetobemoderatelydomainspecificandtodentsarepresentedwithscenariosrequiringtheuseofbepredictedbyacombinationofcertainresources,,ctblendofresourcesballgame)andhavetosolvemathproblemsbasedonandthesuccesswithwhichtheseresourcesarethe cal–Figural:tsareexample,NiuandSternberg(2001),anentertainmentCreativity Research Journal91Downloaded

By:

[Blekinge

Institute

of

Technology,

Infocenter]

At:

19:40

6

February

2011

R. J. Sternbergpark)andhavetoanswerquestionsaboutnavigatingInathirdstudy,wetested511Russianschoolchil-effectively through the area depicted by the (ranginginagefrom8to17years)ve–Verbal:tsaremothersand328fathersofthesechildren(Grigorenkopresentedwithverbalanalogiesprecededby&Sternberg,2001).,moneyfallsofftrees).ofanalytical,creative,-Theyhavetosolvetheanalogiesasthoughthesider,forexample,rcounterfactual premises were were used for ve–Quantitative:sureofcreativeintelligencealsoberoperations,forexample,“flix,”stpartaskedthepartici-mericalmanipulationsthatdifferasafunctionofpantstodescribetheworldthroughtheeyesofin-whetherthefirstoftwooperandsisgreaterthan,ondpartaskedparticipantstodescribeto,ipantshavetousethewhomightliveandwhatmighthappenonaplanetnovelnumberoperationstosolvepresentedmathprob-called“Priumliava.”ve–Figural:Ineachitem,participantsaretestwasscoredinthreedifferentwaystoyieldthreefstscorewasfororiginalitymoretransformations;theythenhavetoapplytherule(novelty),thesecondwasfortheamountofdevelop-oftheseriestoanewfigurewithadifferentappear-mentintheplot(quality),andthethirdscorewasforance, and complete the new veuseofpriorknowledgeintheserelativelynovelkindsoftasks(sophistication).ThemeasureofWefoundthataconfirmatoryfactoranalysisonthepracticalintelligencewasself-reportandalsocostpartwasdesignedasatelligence,yieldingseparateanduncorrelatedanalyti-20-item,self-reportinstrument,assessingpracticalcal,creative,,effectiveandsuc-tionwascausedbytheinclusionofessayaswellascessfulcommunicationwithotherpeople),,howtofixhouseholditems,howteststendedtocorrelatesubstantiallywithmulti-torunthefamilybudget),andinthedomainofeffec-ple-choicetests,,dthemultiple-choiceana-somethingthathasbecomechaotic).lyticalsubtesttoloadmosthighlyontheanalyticalfac-Inthisstudy,exploratoryprincipalcomponentanal-tor,buttheessaycreativeandperformancesubtestsysisforbothchildrenanda,rimaxandobliminrotationsmeasurementofcreativeandpracticalabilitiesproba-yieldedclear-cutanalytical,creative,andpracticalfa,asampleofadifferentnational-instrumentsthatcomplementmultiple-choiceinstru-ity(Russian),adifferentsetoftests,,creativeskillscouldbemeasuredsepa-methodofanalysis(exploratoryratherthanconfirma-rately from analytical and practical alysis)againsupportedthetheoryofsuccessfulInasecondandseparatestudy,siderinmoredetaileachofthreefreshman-yearhighschoolstudentsintheUnitedmajoraspectsofsuccessfulintelligence:analytical,States,Finland,andSpain,weusedthemulti-creative, and -choicesectionofthatSTATtocomparefivealter-Inarecentstudy,creativitywasmeasuredusingnativemodelsofintelligence,againviaconfirmatoryopen-ended,performance-basedmeasures(featuringageneralfactorof&theRainbowProjectCollaborators,inpress)erformancetaskswereexpectedmodel,allowingforintercorrelationamongtheana-totapanimportantpartofcreativitythatmightnotbelytic,creative,andpracticalfactors,providedthebestmeasuredusingmultiple-choiceitemsalone,becausefittothedata(Sternberg,Castejón,Prieto,Hautamäki,open-endedmeasuresrequiremorespontaneousand& Grigorenko, 2001).free-form responses.92Creativity Research JournalDownloaded

By:

[Blekinge

Institute

of

Technology,

Infocenter]

At:

19:40

6

February

2011

The Nature of CreativityForeachofthetasks,participantsweregivenaratecreativityfactoremergedthatseparatedthecre-choiceoftopicorstimghthesediffer-foundthataddingourcreativemeasurestoanalyticalenttopicsorstimulivariedintermsoftheirdifficultyaswellaspracticalmeasuresroughlydoubledthepre-forinventingcreativestoriesandcaptions,thesediffer-dictivevalueoftheSATforoursampleinpredictingencesareaccountedforinthederivationofitemre-gradesforfirst-yearcollegestudents(Sternberg&thesponse theory ability wCollaborators,inpress).ThemeasuresalsoEachofthecreativityperformancetaskswereratedserved todecreaseethnic differences between eriathatweredeterminedaprioriasindicatorsCreativityisasmuchadecisionaboutandanatti-of vityisoftenobviousinyoungchildren,ipantsweregivenfivecartoonsfindinolderchildrenandadultsbecausetheircreativepurchasedfromthearchivesoftheNewYorker;how-potentialhasbeensuppressedbyasocietythatencour-ever,ticipants’taskages intellectual teachstudentstothinktoonsforcleverness,humor,originality,andtaskap-morecreatively(Sternberg&Williams,1996;nedcreativityliams,Markle,Brigockas,&Sternberg,2001).How-scorewasformedbysummingtheindividualratingsever,theemphasisinourresearchhasbeenonevaluat-oneachdimensionexcepttaskappropriateness,whichingourideasaboutcreativityintheclassroomfortheoretically is not a measure of creativityper ction of conventional subject ipantswereaskedtowriteInafirstsetofstudies,weexploredthequestionoftwostories,spendingapproximately15minoneach,whetherconventionaleducationinschoolsystemati-choosingfromthefollowingtitles:“AFifthChance,”callydiscriminatesagainstchildrenwithcreativeand“2983,”“BeyondtheEdge,”“TheOctopus’spracticalstrengths(Sternberg&Clinkenbeard,1995;Sneakers,”“It’sMovingBackwards,”and“NotSternberg,Ferrari,Clinkenbeard,&Grigorenko,1996;EnoughTime”(Lubart&Sternberg,1995;SternbergSternbergetal.,1999).Motivatingthisworkwasthe&Lubart,1995).Ateamofsixjudgeswastrainedsixjudgesratedthestoriesforfavorchildrenwithstrengthsinmemoryandanalyticaloriginality,complexity,emotionalevocativeness,ptiveness on 5-point dateourideas,tudy,weusedtheSTATfivesheetsofpaper,eachcontainingasetof11to13(Sternberg,1993).Thetestwasadministeredto326imageslinkedbyacommontheme(keys,money,childrenaroundtheUnitedStatesandinsomeothertravel,animalsplayingmusic,andhumansplayingcountrieswhowereidentifiedbytheirschoolsasgiftedmusic).Afterchoosingoneofthepages,enwereselectedforpantwasgiven15mintoformulateashortstoryandaYalesummerprogramin(college-level)psychologydictateitintoacassetterecorder,whichwastimedbyiftheyfellintooneoffiveabilitygroupings:highana-theproctorforthepaperassessmentsandbytheinter-lytical,highcreative,highpractical,highbalancednalcomputerclockforthecomputerassessments.(highinallthreeabilities),orlowbalanced(lowinallTherewerenorestrictionsontheminimumormaxi-threeabilities).StudentswhocametoYalewerethenmumnumberofimathewrittenstories,eachjudgefourinstructionalgroupsusedthesameintroductoryratedthestoriesfororiginality,complexity,emotionalpsychologytextbook(apreliminaryversionofStern-evocativeness, and descriptiveness on 5-point ,1995)fferedamongthemwasthetypeofafter-Inasampleof793first-yeartheUnitedStates,incollegesrangingfromnotTheywereassignedtoaninstructionalconditionthatselectiveatalltoveryselective,wefoundthatasepa-emphasizedeithermemory,analytical,creative,orCreativity Research Journal93Downloaded

By:

[Blekinge

Institute

of

Technology,

Infocenter]

At:

19:40

6

February

2011

R. J. mple,inthememorycon-Afollow-upstudy(Sternberg,Torff,&Grigorenko,dition,theymightbeaskedtodescribethemaintenets1998a,1998b)225tion,theymightbeaskedtocompareandcontrasttreativecondition,theyneighborhoodinRaleigh,142mightbeaskedtoformulatetheirowntracticalcondition,theymightbetoupper-middleclassstudyinginBaltimore,Mary-askedhowtheycouldusewhattheyhadlearnedaboutland,andFresno,study,studentsdepression to help a friend who was tsinallfourinstructionalconditionswereInthefirstcondition,theyweretaughtthecoursethatevaluatedintermsoftheirperformanceonhomework,basicallytheywouldhavelearnedhadtherebeennoin-amidtermexam,afinalexam,peofworkwasevaluatedformemory,ondcondition,studentsweretaughtinalytical,creative,,allstu-waythatemphasizedcritical(analytical)s were evaluated in exactly the same rdcondition,theyweretaughtinawaythatem-First,weobservedwhenthestudentsarrivedatphasizedanalytical,creative,,thatthestudentsinthehighcreativeandhighAllstudents’performancewasassessedformemorypracticalgroupsweremuchmorediverseintermsoflearning(throughmultiple-choiceassessments)aswellracial,ethnic,socioeconomic,andeducationalback-asforanalytical,creative,andpracticallearninggroundsthanwerethestudentsinthehighanalytical(through performance assessments).group,suggestingthatcorrelationsofmeasuredintelli-Asexpected,studentsintheanalytical,creative,gencewithstatusvariablessuchasthesemaybere-practicalcombinedconditionos,thekindsofstudentsidentifiedasstrongdifferedcouldarguethatthisresultmerelyreflectedtheless,theresultsuggestedcomparisonwithstudentsidentifportantly,justbyexpand-Moreimportant,however,wastheresultthatchildreningtherangeofabilitiesmeasured,wediscoveredin-inthesuccessful-intelligenceconditionoutperformedtellectualstrengthsthatmightnothavebeenapparenttheotherchildren,evenonthemultiple-choicemem-through a conventional rwords,totheextentthatone’sgoalisSecond,wefoundthatallthreeabilitytests—ana-justtomaximizechildren’smemoryforinformation,lytical,creative,andpractical—significantlypredictedtealeschildrentocapital-siswasused,atleasttwooftheseabilitymeasurescon-izeontheirstrengthsandtocorrectortocompensatetributedsignificantlytothepredictionofeachofthefortheirweaknesses,sasareflectionofthematerial in a variety of interesting ultyofdeemphasizingtheanalyticalwayofWehaveextendedtheseresultstoreadingcurriculateaching,oneofthedyofthe analytical score.871middleschoolstudentsand432highschoolstu-Thirdandmostimportantly,therewasanaptitudedents,wetaughtreadingeithercreatively,analytically,treatmentinteractionwhedininstructionalconditionsthatbettermatchedthemiddleschoollevel,atternofabilitiesoutperformedstudentswhoAtthehighschoollevel,rwords,whenstudentsarestructioninmathematics,physicalsciences,socialsci-taughtinawaythatfitshowtheythink,theydobetterences,English,history,foreignlanguages,enwithcreativeorpracticalabilities,Inallsettings,studentswhoweretaughtusingourex-whoarealmostnevertaughtorassessedinawaythatpandedmodelsubstantiallyoutperformedstudentsmatchestheirpatternofabilities,maybeatadisadvan-whoweretaughtinstandardways(Grigorenko,Jarvin,tage in course after course, year after year.& Sternberg, 2002).94Creativity Research JournalDownloaded

By:

[Blekinge

Institute

of

Technology,

Infocenter]

At:

19:40

6

February

2011

The Nature of CreativityThus,theresultsofthreesetsofstudiessuggestthatTheimportanceofcontextisillustratedbythedif-teachingforcreativethinking,aswellasforanalyticalference,ingeneral,betweencreativediscoveryandandpracticalthinking,mple,BACONandrelatedpro-studentsdonotmaximallyprofitfromconventionalin-gramsofLangley,Simon,Bradshaw,andZytgowstruction,buttheymayprofitfromthekindsofex-(1987)redismple,troductorypsychologyasafreshman,IwasaTheproceseshowedviacomputersimulationarepresumablynotidenticalit: Despite my efforts, I got a C in the ferencederivesfromthefactthatcontemporaryprogrammerscanprovide,intheirpro-Kinds of Creative Contributionsgrammingofinformationintocomputersimulations,representationsandparticularorganizationsofdataCreativecontributorsmakedifferentdecisionsre-thatmaynothaveber,theprogramssolveproblemsbutdopropulsiontheoryofcreativecontributions(Sternberg,r,puttingasidethequestion1999b;Sternberg,Kaufman,&Pretz,2001,2002)thatofwhethertheprocessesarethesame,arediscoveryaddressesthisissueofhowpeopledecidetoinvesticideaisthatcreativitycanrediscoverer,butitwouldnotbejudgedtobecreativebeofdifferentkinds,dependingonhowitpropelsex-wvelopingcreativity,elopdifferentkindsofcreativity,rangingfromGiventheimportanceofpurpose,creativecontribu-minor replications to major redirections in reativecontributionsdiffernotonlyintheircreativityofanindividualisalwaysjudgedinacon-amountsbutalsointhekindsofcreativitytheyrepre-text,mple,icular,whatFreudwerehighlycreativepsychologists,butthena-arethetypesofcreativecontributionsapersoncantureoftheircontributionsappearsinsomewayormakewithinagivencontext?dFreudproposedityconcentrateontheattributesoftheindividual(seearadicallynewtheoryofhumanthoughtandmotiva-Sternberg,1999a;Ward,Smith,&Vaid,1997).How-tionandAnnaFreudlargelyelaboratedonandmodi-ever,totheextentthatcreativityisintheinteractionoffiedSigmundFreud’reativecontri-personwithcontext,weneedtoconcentrateaswellonbutionsdifferinqualityandnotjustinquantityoftheattributesoftheindividualandtheindividual’screativity?work relative to the environmental eofcreativityexhibitedinacreator’sworksAtaxonomyofcreativecontributionsneedstodealcanhaveatleastasmuchofaneffectonjudgmentswiththequestionnotonlyofinwhatdomainacontri-aboutthatpersonandhisorherworkasdoesthebutioniscrinstances,itcontributionis(Gardner,1993).-inbiologymorecreativeorcreativeinadifferentwayample,acontemporaryartistmighthavethoughtpro-fromanotherworkinbiology,orwhatmakesitscre-cesses,personality,motivation,andevenbackgroundativecontributiondifferentfromthatofaworkinart?variablessimilartothoseofMonet,butthatartist,Thus,ataxonomyofdomainsofworkisinsufficienttopaintingtodayinthestyleofMonet,notbejudgedtobecreativeinths,includingdiffer quantitatively and, possibly, ,haveexperimentedwithimpressionism,andAcreativecontributionrepresentsanattempttopro-unlessthecontemporaryartistintroducedsomenewpelafieldfromwhereveritistowhereverthecreatortwist,he,creativityis,,safieldfromsomepointtoCreativity Research Journal95Downloaded

By:

[Blekinge

Institute

of

Technology,

Infocenter]

At:

19:40

6

February

2011

R. J. alwaysrepresentsadecisiontoexerciseTypes of Creativity That Accept atortriestobringotherstoapartic-Paradigms and Attempt to Extend tributionisanattempttokindsofcreativepulsiontempttoexercise,dependingonh be peofcreativityisrepresentedbystationarymo-Thepropulsionmodelsuggestseighttypesofcon-tion,rentstatusofthemaydifferintheextentofce,thescaleofeighttypespresentedhereisin-propulsionleadstocircularmotion,suchthatthecre-tendedasclosertoanominsnofixedaprioriwayofevaluatingviewed in a different ntypesofcreativecontributionsprobablyattempttomovethefieldforwardinthedirectionital-tend,onaverage,r,tribu-ityofwork,andthetypeofcreativitydoesnotmaketionisanattempttomovethefieldforwardinthedirec-any predictions regarding quality of isalreadygoingbutbymovingbeyondwhereThpulsionleadstovidedintothreemajorcategories,contributionsthatforwardmotionthatisacceleratedbeyondtheexpectedacceptcurrentparadigms,contributionsthatrejectrate of forward tparadigms,realsosubcategorieswithineachofthesecategories:para-Types of Creativity That Reject Currentdigm-preservingcontributionsthatleavethefieldParadigms and Attempt to Replace Themwhereitis(Types1and2),tributionisanattempttore-tributionsthatmovethefieldforwardinthedirectiondirectthefieldfromwhereitistowardadifferentdirec-italreadyisgoing(Types3and4),pulsionthusleadstomotioninadirectioningcontributionsthatmovetheftruction/tributionis(Types5and6),paradigm-rejectingcontributionsthatanattempttomovethefieldbacktowhereitoncewas(amovethefieldinanewdirectionfromanewstartingreconstructionofthepast)sothatitmaymoveonwardpoint(Type7),andparadigm-integratingcontribu-fromthatpoint,butinadirectiondifferentfromtheonetionsthatcombineapproaches(Type8).pulsionthusThus,Type1,thelimitingcase,(unlesstheresultscomeoutthewrongway!).tributionisanattempttoType2mayormaynotbecrowddefying,iftheredefi-movethefieldtoadifferent,as-yet-unreached,4goesbeyondwherethecrowdisreadytoisthusfrom5throughdifferent from that the field previously has sly,thereoftenisno“crowd”,thereisafieldrepresentingA Type of Creativity That SynthesizespeoplewithsharedviewsregardingwhatisandisnotCurrent Paradigmsacceptable,andifthoseviewsareshaken,tributionisanattempttoin-may not react etwoformerlydiversewaysofthinkingabout96Creativity Research JournalDownloaded

By:

[Blekinge

Institute

of

Technology,

Infocenter]

At:

19:40

6

February

2011

The Nature of Creativityphenomenaintoasinglewayofthinkingaboutaphe-(Ed.),Advancesinthepsychologyofhumanintelligence:pulsionthusisacombinationoftwo(pp.157–188).Hillsdale,NJ:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates,different approaches that are linked ,J.,&Koelling,R.A.(1966).Therelationofcuetoconse-TheeighnomicScience,4,123–eachGardner, H. (1993).Creating minds. New York: Basic ,however,enko,E.L.,Jarvin,L.,&Sternberg,R.J.(2002).Forexample,aforwardincrementationcanrepresentaSchool-basedtestsofthetriarchictheoryofintelligence:ngs,threesamples,,theworkoftional Psychology, 27, 167–stingeroncognitivedissonance)oranentireGuilford,J.P.(1950).anPsychologist,5,444–(e.g.,theworkofEinsteinonrelativitytheory).Grigorenko,E.L.,&Sternberg,R.J.(2001).Analytical,creative,Thus,thetheorydistinguishescontributionsbothqual-andpracticalintelligenceaspredictorsofself-reportedadaptiveitatively and oning: A case study in igence, 29, 57–y,P.,Simon,H.A.,Bradshaw,G.L.,&Zytkow,J.M.(1987).Scientificdiscovery:Computationalexplorationsofthecre-ative processes. Cambridge, MA: MIT sionLubart,T.I.(1994).erg(Ed.),Thinkingandproblem solving(pp. 290–332). San Diego, CA: article,IhavereviewedsomeofthetheoryLubart,T.I.,&Sternberg,R.J.(1995).AninvestmentapproachtoandresearchmycollaboratorsandIhavedevelopedincreativity:,,&e(Eds.),Thecreativecognitionapproach(pp.269–302).havenotdealtwitheveryquestionthatacompletethe-Cambridge, MA: MIT ,W.,&Sternberg,R.J.(2001).Culturalinfluencesonartisticoryofcreativitymustanswer—r,ationalJournalofPsychol-wehavetriedtoconsideratleastasamplingofitsas-ogy, 36(4), 225–damentalpremiseisthatcreativityisinO’Hara,L.A.,&Sternberg,R.J.(2000–2001).Itdoesn’thurttoask:largepartadecisionthatanyonecanmakebutthatfewEffectsofinstructionstobecreative,practical,oranalyticalonpeopleactuallydomakebecausetheyfindthecoststoessay—ycanplayaroleinthedevelopmentdents’vityResearchJournal,13,197–tivitybyincreasingtherewardsanddecreasingRubenson,D.L.,&Runco,M.A.(1992).rrancewasoneofthepioneersinproach to Ideas in Psychology, 10, 131–izingthatcreativitycanbeunderstoodbyscien-Simonton, D. K. (1994).Greatness. New York: means. We are proud to follow in his erg,R.J.(1981).lof Educational Psychology, 73, 1–erg,R.J.(1982).Natural,unnatural,ive Psychology, 14, 451–ncesSternberg,R.J.(1985).BeyondIQ:Atriarchictheoryofhumanin-telligence. New York: Cambridge University e,T.M.(1983).rnberg,R.J.(1988).Mentalself-government:Atheoryofintel-York: evelopment,31,Cattell,R.B.,&Cattell,A.K.(1973).Measuringintelligencewith197–ign,IL:InstituteforPersonalitySternberg,R.J.(1993).-and Ability entmihalyi,M.(1988).Society,culture,andperson:Asys-Sternberg,R.J.(1995).o,FL:erg(Ed.),ThenatureofHarcourt vity(pp.325–339).NewYork:CambridgeUniversitySternberg, R. J. (1997a).Successful intelligence. New York: erg,R.J.(1997b).k:CambridgeDweck,C.S.(1999).Self-theories:Theirroleinmotivation,person-University ,elphia:PsychologyPress/TaylorSternberg,R.J.(Ed.)(1999a).k:& dge University h,P.A.,&Sternberg,R.J.(1989).ExpertiseandintelligentSternberg,R.J.(1999b).Apropulsionmodelofcreativecontribu-thinking:Whenisitworsetoknowbetter? of General Psychology, 3, 83–vity Research Journal97Downloaded

By:

[Blekinge

Institute

of

Technology,

Infocenter]

At:

19:40

6

February

2011

R. J. SternbergSternberg,R.J.(2001).TeachingpsychologystudentsthatcreativitySternberg,R.J.,Kaufman,J.C.,&Pretz,J.E.(2002).Thecreativityis a General Psychologist, 36(1), 8–rum. New York: Psychology erg,R.J.(Ed.).(2003a).Psychologistsdefyingthecrowd:Sternberg,R.J.,&Lubart,T.I.(1991).Aninvesevelopment,34(1),1–, DC: American Psychological erg,R.J.,&Lubart,T.I.(1995).rnberg,R.J.(2003b).Wisdom,intelligence,andcreativitysynthe-York: Free . New York: Cambridge University erg,R.J.,&Lubart,T.I.(1996).-Sternberg,R.J.,Castejón,J.L.,Prieto,M.D.,Hautamäki,J.,&can Psychologist, 51(7), 677–enko,E.L.(2001).ConfirmatoryfactoranalysisoftheSternberg,R.J.,&TheRainbowCollaborators.(inpress).TheRain-Sternbergtriarchicabilitiestestinthreeinternationalsamples:bowProject:EnhancingtheSATthroughass-lytical,calreportsubmittedpean Journal of Psychological Assessment, 17(1) 1– erg,R.J.,&Clinkenbeard,P.R.(1995).ThetriarchicmodelSternberg,R.J.,Torff,B.,&Grigorenko,E.L.(1998a).Teachingforappliedtoidentifying,teaching,taRoeper Review, 17(4), 255–, 79, 667–erg,R.J.,Ferrari,M.,Clinkenbeard,P.R.,&Grigorenko,erg,R.J.,Torff,B.,&Grigorenko,E.L.(1998b).TeachingL.(1996).Identification,instruction,lofEduca-children:tional Psychology, 90, 374– Quarterly, 40, 129–erg,R.J.,&Williams,W.M.(1996).HowtodevelopstudentSternberg,R.J.,&Gastel,J.(1989a).dria,VA:AssociationforSupervisionandintelligence:igence,13,Curriculum Development.187–ky,S.J.,&Sternberg,R.J.(1986).Conceptualandlexicalde-Sternberg,R.J.,&Gastel,J.(1989b).Ifdancersatetheirshoes:lge, 25, 202– and Cognition, 17, 1–ce,E.P.(1962).oodCliffs,Sternberg,R.J.,&Grigorenko,E.L.(1995).StylesofthinkinginNJ: Prentice an Journal for High Ability, 6(2), 201–ce,E.P.(1974).erg,R.J.,Grigorenko,E.L.,Ferrari,M.,&Clinkenbeard,ton, MA: Personnel Press.(1999).Atriarchicanalysisofanaptitude—treatmentinterac-Ward,T.B.,Smith,S.M,&Vaid,J.(Eds.).(1997).Creativethought:anJournalofPsychologicalAssessment,15(1),-1–, DC: America Psychological erg,R.J.,&KalmarD.A.(1997).Whenwillthemilkspoil?Williams,W.M.,Markle,F.,Brigockas,M.,&Sternberg,igence,25,(2001).Creativeintelligenceforschool(CIFS):21lessonsto185–erg,R.J.,Kaufman,J.C.,&Pretz,J.E.(2001).Thepropul-Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & l of Creative Behavior, 35(2), 75–101.98Creativity Research JournalDownloaded

By:

[Blekinge

Institute

of

Technology,

Infocenter]

At:

19:40

6

February

2011