Turning to art as a positive way of living with cancer: A qualitative study of personal motives and contextual influences

Why do some women turn to creative art-making after a diagnosis of cancer? Eleven women provided qualitative accounts that were analysed following guidelines for interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA). Some described taking up artistic leisure activities initially in order to manage emotional distress. Others emphasized their need for positive well-being, taking up art to experience achievement and satisfaction, to regain a positive identity, and to normalize family dynamics in the context of living with cancer. Participants’ turn to art-making was facilitated by biographical and contextual factors, including pre-existing craft skills, long-standing personal values and coping philosophies, family role models for managing adversity, and the supportive encouragement of family and friends. Other research has acknowledged that positive lifestyle change and posttraumatic growth can occur after a cancer diagnosis, and this study reveals a multi-faceted process. The findings suggest a need for further research into the experiences that facilitate positive lifestyle change and subjective well-being among people who are living with cancer.     

创造性的生理研究新进展

创造性的生理基础很复杂。关于创造性生理基础的研究集中在大脑皮质激活与脑半球不对称两个方面。研究发现,大脑皮质激活状态对创造性有影响,低水平的皮质激活,特别是低水平的前额叶激活,较有利于创造性．研究还发现,创造性和左右半球不对称活动有关,处于创造状态时,右半球相对要比左半球激活程度更高。     

高中生创造性思维发展特点的研究

选取110名高中生为被试,采用自编“中学生创造性思维测验”,考察了高中生创造性思维水平的年龄特点、性别差异以及学科成绩与创造性思维水平之间的相关.结果表明:(1)从创造性思维总分上看,高中生的创造性思维水平发展比较平缓,各年级间差异不显著;其中创造性思维最重要的品质——独特性:从高一到高二年级处于较为平稳的水平,二者无显著差异;高三比高二(P<001)和高一(P<0001)有显著提高;(2)高中学生的创造性思维不存在显著的性别差异;(3)中学生语文成绩与创造性思维总得分及部分项目得分有一定相关,与创造性思维的独特性及各项目上的独特性均无显著相关.数学成绩与创造性思维的诸方面均无显著相关.     

从认知范式到人本范式 --创造性心理学研究范式的整体性转型

长期以来,认知范式创造性心理学将研究的重心放在个体创造性思维的发散性运演与转化上,排斥价值性研究。而人本范式创造性心理学将研究重心放在个体的人性建设上,从根本上实现了创造性心理学研究范式的整体性转型。本文对人本范式创造性心理学的哲学基础、主要观点、方法论思想、影响及局限作了简明扼要的阐释。     

Creative Occupational Therapist: It's About the Client Using Focus Groups to Explore Creativity in Occupational Therapy

Although creativity is an important aspect of occupational therapy theory and practice, there have been few studies that would explore this concept in the context of the occupational therapy process. This was the first qualitative study of creativity in occupational therapy in Slovenia. It was conducted as part of a larger mixed-methods study and included 22 experienced occupational therapists who participated in four focus groups. The focus of the study was on the exploration of different factors that could contribute to creativity and creative strategies in occupational therapy, in either a positive or a negative way. Since occupational therapy promotes a client-centered therapy approach, the role of the client as the motivating factor was of particular interest to our study. Six factors that can influence the creativity of occupational therapists emerged from the qualitative analysis (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). While the client was identified as the key factor, the potential of other factors was also recognized. This qualitative study increased the understanding of the concept of creativity and creative behavior in occupational therapy, and also provided empirical material that formed the basis for the development of a questionnaire on creativity in occupational therapy.     

Creative Fixation is No Laughing Matter: The Effects of Funny and Unfunny Examples on Humor Production

How do people come up with humorous ideas? In creative cognition research, exposure to good examples sometimes causes fixation (people get “stuck” on the examples) but other times sparks inspiration (people's responses are more creative). The present research examined the effects of funny and unfunny examples on joke production. A sample of 175 adults read scenarios that they completed with funny responses. All participants were instructed to be funny, but before responding they read (a) funny responses as examples of good responses to emulate, (b) unfunny responses as examples of poor responses to avoid, or (c) no examples. The participants’ own responses were rated for funniness and for similarity to the example responses, and response times were recorded. Reading either funny or unfunny examples, compared to no examples, caused people to come up with funnier jokes. Similarity to the examples was low in all conditions, so fixation was relatively modest, but people who saw unfunny examples spent more time coming up with their responses. Taken together, the findings support the growing literature showing that examples are often inspiring rather than constraining, and they imply that good and bad examples spark creative thought via different paths.     

Psychology of Science/Theology of Science: Reaching Out or Narrowing?

Formalizing a “psychology of science” today will constrain intellectual freedom in ways more likely stultifying than liberating. We should be more improvisational in seeking ideas from academic psychology to develop a more comprehensive purview. I suggest that a psychology of science should look at systematic theology and empirical theology. Liberal theologians have long experience trying to distill from religion those structural aspects that affirm openness in a search for truth. Science, as well as religion, has its myths and rituals, but theologians are more experienced than scientists at a large mythohistorical scale. There are distortions in the extreme degree to which psychological science has traditionally emphasized empiricism, positivism, hypothesis testing, and falsifiability. I argue for less critical reduction and more creative augmentation. This could include looking outside academia at cognitive competencies of people in trades. Exaggerated parsimony is an old story. This is illustrated by the opposition to David Hartley's 1749 theory of neural oscillations. There is an inexorable “margin of uncertainty” where scientific prediction and control can never outstrip the new uses to which human beings put ideas. Facts and values interact in this margin; theology has long made a home there, but scientists sometimes have been excessive in rejecting the “naturalistic fallacy.” There is also often a degree of disingenuousness in psychology's reluctance to take subjective phenomena seriously; here there may be lessons in how empirical theology has handled subjectivity, as well as in taking an honest look at the way much of the methodology of experimental psychology incorporates subjective assessments. Feist's book is a start, but these things need more thought before codifying a psychology of science.     

Creative Change: The Life and Work of Four Novelists: Jane Austen, E. M. Forster, Barbara Pym, and Henry Roth

Robert Kastenbaum has argued that we need to take a life-span approach to the lives of artists in order to determine what factors affected their creativity. To that end, I briefly review the lives of four writers, Jane Austen, E. M. Forster, Barbara Pym, and Henry Roth. Each followed a different pattern: Austen wrote productively until her early death; Forster ceased to write novels after his midlife success; Barbara Pym continued to write until her death from cancer; and Henry Roth restarted his moribund career in his seventies. These differences suggest that creativity is closely connected to life events and the artist's psychological state of mind.     

The Effect of General Creative Personality and Freedom of Task Choice on Adolescents' Social Creativity

This study investigated the effect of general creative personality and freedom of task choice on the social creativity of adolescents. The results indicated, first, that senior high school students scored higher than junior high school students. Second, girls scored higher than boys on originality, fluency, flexibility, appropriateness, and utility with regard to creative social problem‐solving. Third, freedom of task choice and its interaction with creative personality had significant effects on the originality, appropriateness, utility, flexibility, and fluency of social creativity. Adolescents who completed the task voluntarily scored higher on these dimensions than adolescents who completed it reluctantly and, among the voluntary adolescents, those with high and medium creative personality scored higher than those with low creative personality, whereas no such difference was found among the reluctant adolescents. Adolescents were more likely to show social creativity, and their general creative personality was more likely to be brought into effect under the freedom of task choice condition.