The Construct of Creativity: Structural Model for Self‐Reported Creativity Ratings

Several thousand subjects completed self‐report questionnaires about their own creativity in 56 discrete domains. This sample was then randomly divided into three subsamples that were subject to factor analyses that compared an oblique model (with a set of correlated factors) and a hierarchical model (with a single second‐order, or hierarchical, factor subsuming all of the first order factors). After model refinement, both models were then tested on a confirmation sample. The hierarchical model had a better fit with the data than the oblique model, providing support for theories that have proposed a hierarchical structure to creativity, such as the Amusement Park Theoretical Model. The analysis provided evidence of both an over‐arching general factor and seven more specific General Thematic Areas of creative performance (Artistic‐Verbal, Artistic‐Visual, Entrepreneur, Interpersonal, Math/Science, Performance, and Problem‐Solving).     

The Kaufman Domains of Creativity Scale: Turkish Validation and Relationship to Academic Major

One common self-assessment of creativity is the Kaufman Domains of Creativity Scale (K-DOCS). This article provides support for a Turkish translation of the instrument, offering exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis to determine whether the factors were consistent across cultures. The participants consisted of two groups. The first group consisted of 1,260 undergraduate students (912 females, 348 males) at a public university in Turkey and was utilized for the principal axis factoring analysis. Horn's parallel analysis, a robust statistical technique, was employed to determine the number of factors to be extracted from a scale. The second group consisted of 1,215 participants (885 females and 330 males) who were utilized for confirmatory factor analysis. Results supported a nine-factor solution as a better fit for this sample than the five-solution originally used by Kaufman. Of the original five factors, four factors were divided into two sub-factors, which were distinct although moderately correlated. Finally, we determined the relationship between K-DOCS factors and college major. We also found good evidence for the construct, discriminant, and convergent validity of the scale. Relationships between K-DOCS factors and college major were largely consistent with predictions, providing additional evidence for the construct validity of the scale.     

Creative Actions Scale: A Spanish Scale of Creativity in Different Domains

This article introduces the Creative Actions Scale (CAS), a Spanish self‐report assessment of individual differences in creative actions. The CAS consists of independent scales that assess the frequency of engagement in everyday creative actions across seven domains: Literature, Plastic Arts and Crafts, Science and Technology, Scenic Arts, Music, Social Participation, and Everyday Creativity. The sample included 1604 men and women who lived in different provinces in Argentina. The participants’ ages ranged from 18 to 94 years. All of the participants spoke Spanish and had an average socioeconomic level. People with different levels of education were included in the sample. We applied the following data collection instruments: CAS, Biographical Inventory of Creative Behaviors, and Domains of Creativity Scale. The analysis provided evidence of internal consistency and validity of the CAS. The confirmatory factor analysis showed an adequate fit of the seven‐domain model. The results also showed significant differences according to gender in some CAS domains. Inclusion of the Social Participation and Everyday Creativity domains is novel and useful for assessing creativity in the Spanish‐speaking population.     

Domain‐Specific Creativity in Relation to the Level of Empathy and Systemizing

This study aimed to explore self‐reported domain‐specific creativity in relation to the level of empathy, systemizing, and the Big Five personality dimensions. The research sample consisted of 1112 college students to whom the Kaufman Domains of Creativity Scale (K‐DOCS ), the Creative Achievement Questionnaire (CAQ ), Baron‐Cohen's empathy and systemizing quotients (EQ and SQ ), and NEO ‐FFI were administered. The results suggest that the systemizing quotient (SQ ) significantly correlated positively with the K‐DOCS Mechanical/Science, and Scholarly scales, as well as with the CAQ Invention and Scientific Discovery scales. The empathy quotient (EQ ) significantly correlated in a positive direction with the K‐DOCS Self/Everyday creativity. In spite of the fact that the EQ and SQ overlap to a considerable extent with the five general personality dimensions and are closely linked to gender, the results confirm their incremental validity beyond the framework of these variables. The EQ and SQ explain the considerable amount of variability, particularly in the case of the scales connected with scientific and technical creativity: the SQ is a relevant predictor of the K‐DOCS Mechanical/Science scale and the CAQ Invention and Scientific Discovery scale. By contrast, the EQ represents a significant predictor of Self/Everyday creativity.     

Creativity and the Dark Triad: A meta-analysis

This paper presents a meta-analysis of the relationships between creativity (creative potential, activities, and achievement) and the Dark Triad of personality: narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Multilevel meta-analytic models demonstrated a small but significant positive association between creativity and narcissism (r = 0.15 [0.10, 0.29]) and Machiavellianism (r = 0.06 [0.02, 0.09]), but not with psychopathy (r = 0.03 [-0.02, 0.07]). Creativity measures (self-report-vs.-performance), aspects (self-perception, creative activity, creative abilities, creative achievements), and domains (general, art, science, and everyday creativity) moderated the links with the Dark Triad. We discuss the possible mechanism of associations between Dark Triad traits and creativity and highlight future research directions.     

艺术创造力的脑神经生理基础

艺术创造力(Artistic Creativity)是创造力领域特异性研究的重要成果。它是个体产生新颖、独特而具有审美或艺术价值产品的能力, 和科学创造力一样也属于个体创造力的范畴。研究通过对已有脑损伤研究和神经影像研究梳理, 归纳和总结了艺术创造力的脑神经基础, 指出艺术创造力与科学创造力的神经基础存在一定差异, 认为艺术创造力主要和大脑的额叶、颞叶以及颞顶联合皮层密切相关。未来研究则需进一步借助巧妙的实验设计, 在严格控制个体差异和文化效应的基础上来对艺术创造力的脑结构和功能基础进行更细致的探讨。     

Looking for Renaissance People: Examining Domain Specificity-Generality of Creativity Using Item Response Theory Models

Creativity is increasingly identified as a key educational outcome at the local, regional, and national levels in several countries. Yet one key issue about the nature of creativity remains controversial: Whether creativity is domain specific or domain general. Resolving this issue would significantly impact the way creativity is identified, nurtured, and assessed in our schools. Three-hundred and fifty-nine undergraduate and graduate students completed measures that assessed their creative achievements in 6 distinct domains. Results based on item response theory models suggested that creativity was domain general, rather than domain specific, and part of the evidence provided by the classical test theory models seemed to favor the domain-specific view. These findings have great implications for researchers and practitioners who aim to assess and promote creativity in schools.     

Psychometric Qualities and Measurement Invariance of the Modified Self‐Rated Creativity Scale

The 13‐item self‐rated creativity scale (SRCS) initially developed for supervisory rating of employees’ creativity was modified by some researchers and used as a self‐report of creativity. However, it is not clear if the modified SRCS is psychometrically sound. The present study addressed this gap in three studies (N = 1,033). The exploratory factor analysis (Study 1) revealed a two‐factor solution after removing Item 9 due to low factor loading. Confirmatory factor analysis was then used in Study 2 to examine and compare the conceptual one‐factor model with 13 items (Model 1), one‐factor model with 12 items (Model 2), two‐factor model with 12 items (Model 3), and the 12‐item bifactor model with one general factor and two specific factors (Model 4). The results indicated that Model 4 is more superior to all the competing models. Study 3 further confirmed that the bifactor model, showed support to the reliability and convergent validity, and found partial metric invariance across Chinese and Malay undergraduates. Taken together, the modified (12‐item) SRCS is a psychometrically sound tool for self‐rated creativity in the Malaysian context.     

Domain Specificity and the Limits of Creativity Theory

A growing body of research evidence suggests that creativity is very domain‐specific and that domain‐general skills or traits contribute little to creative performance. The term “creativity” is a convenient term for collecting many interesting artifacts, processes, and people into a single category, and the term “creative thinking skills” may be a useful way to connect a diverse set of unrelated cognitive processes that operate on different content and in different domains. These concepts are misleading, however, because although they connect things that may seem similar to observers, they lack any underlying cognitive psychological validity. This has implications for the ways we understand and assess creativity, and also for how we should direct our efforts to develop creative‐thinking skills in diverse domains. Creativity training needs either to target the domains in which creativity enhancement is desired or to use a wide range of activities in diverse domains if the goal is more general improvement in many domains. Creativity assessment needs to focus on domain‐by‐domain assessment and to review findings based on allegedly domain‐general tests of creativity that may have misled researchers to unsupportable interpretations. Creativity theory needs to set more modest goals of domain‐by‐domain theory development and to recognize that theories that may seem domain‐general might better be understood as meta‐theoretical heuristics that do not actually describe domain‐general processes. These meta‐theories might in some cases help guide the search for domain‐based theories.     

Measuring attention in very old adults using the Test of Everyday Attention

There is a need for validated measures of attention for use in longitudinal studies of older populations. We studied 249 participants aged 80 to 101 years using the population-based MOBILIZE Boston Study. Four subscales of the Test of Everyday Attention (TEA) were included, measuring attention switching, selective, sustained and divided attention and a neuropsychological battery including validated measures of multiple cognitive domains measuring attention, executive function and memory. The TEA previously has not been validated in persons aged 80 and older. Among participants who completed the TEA, scores on other attentional measures strongly with TEA domains (R=.60-.70). Proportions of participants with incomplete TEA subscales ranged from 8% (selective attention) to 19% (attentional switching). Reasons for not completing TEA tests included failure to comprehend test instructions despite repetition and practice. These results demonstrate the challenges and potential value of the Test of Everyday Attention in studies of very old populations.     

小学教师的创造力培养观与创造性教学行为的关系:教学监控能力的中介作用

用创造力培养观、教学监控能力和创造性教学行为问卷对430名小学教师进行调查,考察三者之间的关系,并着重对教学监控能力在其中的中介作用进行分析。结果表明:(1)创造力培养观、教学监控能力及其各个维度对创造性教学行为都有正向预测作用;(2)教学监控能力的计划准备性、控制调节性、评价反馈性、课后反省性及作为一个整体在创造力培养观与创造性教学行为之间均具有显著的中介效应。这一发现提示教师培训工作应重视教师教学监控能力的实际增长,这样才能使教师已经接受的创造教育理念落实到创造性教学行为上。     

Creativity and mental health in everyday life

Abstract

The connection between mental health and creativity has traditionally been studied in terms of outstanding aesthetic‐professional creativity and mental illness. More interesting however, is the possible connection between “everyday “ creativity and mental health. Everyday creativity involves attacking day to day activities in a divergent way: It derives from a complex of cognitive, affective, personal, motivational, and social factors, and is characterized by openness, flexibility, autonomy, playfulness, humor willingness to take risks, and perseverance. These characteristics are also consistently emphasized in models of “normal”; personality growth, so that the possibility of promoting mental health arises by fostering creativity in day to day life. Several small studies described in this article give examples of how this might be done and the kinds of benefits which can result.     

Creativity and Affective Temperament in Artistic and Non-artistic Students: Different Temperaments are Related to Different Aspects of Creativity

The relationship between creativity and temperament has been well documented in studies with professional artists. This also pertains to affective temperaments which constitute the vulnerability to affective disorders. However, less is known about the contribution of particular temperaments to specific components of creativity, for example, ideational fluency, or originality of thinking. The aim of the present study was to assess affective temperaments and creativity in artistic and non-artistic students. Ninety (39 artistic and 51 non-artistic) students were enrolled in the study. Affective temperaments were evaluated by means of TEMPS-A questionnaire. Creativity was measured with BWAS test assessing the originality of thinking and a sample of tasks derived from BIS battery, assessing ideational fluency. Artistic students showed higher rates of cyclothymic temperament. They also outperformed non-artistic students in both domains of creativity. The originality of thinking correlated positively with the level of cyclothymic temperament, whereas ideational fluency was positively related to hyperthymic temperament. Ideational fluency also correlated with the level of parental education. Results indicate that creativity is related to temperaments underlying predisposition to bipolar affective disorder; however, different temperaments are related to different aspects of creativity.     

Boundless Creativity: Evidence for the Domain Generality of Individual Differences in Creativity

This study investigated correlates of domain‐general and domain‐specific components of creativity. 158 college students completed a questionnaire that assessed their motivational and personality traits (i.e., intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, creative personality, and originality in word association) as well as intellectual abilities (SAT verbal and quantitative scores). Under two different instruction conditions (standard instruction or explicit “be creative” instruction), students also took a battery of multi‐item, product‐based tests of creativity in three domains (artistic, verbal, and mathematical creativity). Factor analyses showed evidence of domain‐generality of creativity. Furthermore, results from structural equation models showed that motivational and personality traits and intellectual abilities were associated with the domain‐general component of creativity. Only one variable (SAT quantitative score) was found to be associated with the domain‐specific component of mathematical creativity under the explicit “be creative” instruction condition. These results affirm the domain‐generality of creativity and challenge researchers to identify correlates of domain‐specific components of creativity.     

Socio-Economic Status and Creativity: A Meta-Analysis

In the present study, we examined the relationship between socio-economic status (SES) and creativity through a meta-analysis of 885 effect sizes from 151 samples in 117 studies. Analyses of a multivariate model with a robust variance estimator showed a small positive correlation between creativity and SES (r = .120, 95% CI [0.086, 0.154]). Further analyses with four groups of moderators (i.e., creativity measure, SES indicator, sample characteristics, and study characteristics) indicated that the mean effect size is significantly higher when the creativity index is flexibility rather than fluency or when SES is measured by parental or one's own level of education and parental occupation rather than the location of residency. In addition, the relationship between creativity and SES dissipated as the students progressed from elementary school through college. The potential role of schooling in the creativity-SES link is discussed.     

跨学科概念图创作能力与科学创造力的关系

采用科学领域的跨学科概念图创作任务, 探讨了跨学科概念图创作能力与科学创造力的关系。研究发现：（1）跨学科概念图创作能力与科学创造力显著正相关;（2）概念图创作的命题、交叉连接与创造力的流畅性、独创性、灵活性显著相关;交叉连接与独创性显著相关;（3）跨学科概念图创作能力的个体差异表现在科学创造力的各个方面。研究表明,跨学科概念图创作任务与科学创造力测验考察了学习者相似的心理能力;跨学科概念图创作不仅可以用于促进跨学科信息整合和知识建构,还可以作为理解学习者创造性思维能力的有效工具     

创造力游乐场理论及其实践涵义

创造力的领域特殊/一般性问题是创造力研究中最具争议的焦点之一。Baer和Kaufman基于大量实证研究, 提出创造力游乐场理论。该理论以游乐场做隐喻, 将创造力分为先决条件、一般主题层面、领域和微领域, 并将创造力的一般性成分和特殊性成分联系起来, 说明这两种成分在层级结构中是如何在不同程度上重叠的。这一理论是西方研究者提出来的, 我国研究者在创造教育实践中也摸索出了类似的培养模式, 两者互相印证, 说明该理论具有极强的科学性与实用性。     

科技人员创造动机与创造力的研究

本研究初步探讨了我国科技人员创造动机与创造力的关系及其基本特征。 1 74名科技人员回答了成就目标、内部动机与外部动机、创造动机和创造力问卷。研究结果表明我国科技人员有较高的创造力和创造动机水平 ,在动机中内部动机水平最高。在动机与创造力的关系上 ,内部动机对创造力的直接与间接影响均达到了显著水平 ,外部动机对创造力的负面影响没有达到显著水平 ,任务目标对创造力无影响 ,自我目标对创造力的积极影响未达到显著水平。     

家庭社会经济地位、智力和内部动机与创造性的关系

以415名初二和高二年级学生为对象,采用修订后的《青少年科学创造性测验》,考察了家庭社会经济地位(SES)、智力和内部动机与创造性的关系。结果发现:(1)家庭SES、智力、内部动机与创造性之间有显著正相关。(2)作为环境因素,家庭SES对创造性有显著预测作用,其标准化路径系数分别等于或高于智力和内部动机等个体因素的系数。(3)家庭SES对创造性既有直接影响,同时通过智力又有间接影响;智力和内部动机对创造性分别有直接影响。     

The Effect of Size of Pupil on the Form and Color Fields

The construct validity of the Wallach-Kogan (W-K) creativity test was investigated through an hierarchical factor analysis of intercorrelations among intelligence, creativity, control, and criterion variables for 73 Ss enrolled in grades 3 and 4 of an inner-city parochial school. The results provided considerable support for W-K's theoretical formulations. Creativity and intelligence assessors defined separate domains and remained totally resilient to merger into a superordinate factor. The creativity domain, which was defined by W-K subtests and criterion ratings, included the following factors: general, visual, and verbal creativity plus a weak methods factor for crayon drawings. The intelligence domain, which was defined by WISC subtests, included a relatively strong g factor and the following four primary factors: verbal precision, freedom from distractibility, perceptual organization, and quasi-specific.