Creativity Theories
Teaching and Leadership in Creative Media: Entry III
Creative people need to not only defy the crowd, but also be able to defy their own beliefs and values, and to defy the current Zeitgeist…Someone who defies nothing is likely not creative, whereas someone who can defy all three can reach consummate creativity —Sternberg (Kaufman and Glaveanu, 2019, p. 30).
Sternberg’s triangulation method of creativity relates to defiance — defy the crowd, defy yourself, defy the zeitgeist. I was a recent participant in a creative thinking activity where I had to come up with as many uses as I could for an everyday object as an individual, then again in pairs to gauge when I am more creative, or as Sternberg would put it, more defiant. This test measures divergent thinking, as it is looking for participants to generate as many ideas or answers as possible. This contrasts with most traditional tests, which focus on convergent thinking or our ability to reach a single, correct solution to a problem.
As an individual, my object of ideation was a lego brick and I have to say the five uses I came up with in those three minutes were pretty dismal and mainly based on what I have seen before or personal experience e.g. a parent trap (as being a parent I have felt that sharp pain of lego stabbing into my foot with all my own weight). While working in a pair the fluency of uses rose exponentially, coming up with sixteen alternative uses of a paperclip in the three minutes. The creative juices were still flowing when the timer blew and we felt cut off, we could have come up with so many more uses. Compared to the dismal ideas I came up with individually, in a pair, the ideas were original, novel and unusual. We kept bouncing ideas off each other and one idea would inspire the next idea, making me think differently from how I did in the solo activity, with much more fire. In the solo activity, the uses I came up with for a lego brick were a pet rat water bowl, hole filler in a brick wall, a parent trap, a lost knob, melt and use as a wax stamp. In the group activity, the flexibility and breadth of ideas we came up with for a paperclip spanned different domains and contexts. These included a lock pick, hair clip, keyring, currency, earing/body jewellery, fabric fastener, s hook, spring, iPhone sim opener, jewellery chain, needle, temporary glasses screw, fish hook, tyre pressure tool, toothpick, and a zipper replacement. Working in a pair made the ideas more elaborate as we developed them more with exciting discussions. With this activity, I found that I think more divergently in a pair. Kaufman and Glaveanu discuss the Componential Model of Creativity theorised by Amabile.
In the original model, Amabile proposed that three interconnected variables were the key to individual creativity (and organizational creativity; Amabile, 1988). The first is domain-relevant skills, which are technical skills and talents and specific knowledge. Creativity-relevant processes are broader, such as being tolerant of ambiguity and willing to take appropriate risks. Finally, she included intrinsic motivation, taking part in an activity because it is enjoyable or meaningful. Extrinsic motivation, in contrast, is when someone is driven by an external reason, such as money, grades, or praise (Kaufman and Glaveanu, 2019, p. 30).
Comparing my approach to creativity with this activity, as a solo participant, I had the technical skills and specific knowledge to be successful, along with the creative relevant processes including tolerance of ambiguity and willingness to take risks, though I did not find the task enjoyable or meaningful, therefore I lacked the intrinsic motivation to be successful. When working in a pair, the social interaction made the activity enjoyable therefore the intrinsic motivation made me more successfully creative. Motivation is a key component in both Sternberg’s triangulation model of creativity and Amabile’s componential model. “Amabile places motivation at the heart of her model, and Sternberg’s idea of defiance requires a strong drive and will” (Kaufman and Glaveanu, 2019, p. 30). A possible external psychological factor that may have subconsciously influenced my perceived success would be that I am more inclined to judge myself more harshly than others. Though I need to be inspired, passionate or curious about what I’m doing.
One of the psychologists who stressed the importance of purpose as a driver of creative work was Gruber (1988; Gruber & Wallace, 1999). His Evolving Systems Approach considered the creative person as a whole and his or her activity as a network of enterprise motivated by the need to answer questions that triggered the creator’s curiosity. By studying the development of creative work over time, this approach allows us to consider the dynamic between knowledge, affect, and purpose in creativity and understand what exactly makes creators passionate about what they do (Kaufman and Glaveanu, 2019, p. 31).
Therefore, if I am intrinsically motivated and passionate, inspired or curious about an idea, my creativity as an individual could be equal to or more creative than when working in a pair. I believe it depends on the activity or product and why am I creating, the reason or message behind the creation gives me intrinsic motivation or inspiration to create. The Reciprocal Model of the Creative Process (Forgeard & Mecklenburg, 2013) is built on the intrinsic-extrinsic theory and is rooted in the idea of prosocial motivation, referring to the situation in which people want to help others (Kaufman and Glaveanu, 2019, p. 31). For example, impacting social change with your creativity.
The Reciprocal Model integrates the intrinsic–extrinsic dimension along with a dimension representing the intended audience: one’s self or someone else. This interaction results in four types of motivation — the Four G’s. Gain is being creative for yourself and for external reasons. Growth is being creative for yourself because the activity is enjoyable and meaningful. When the audience is other people, it becomes more complex. Guidance is being creative in mentoring others to help them become in touch with their own creativity. The intersection of extrinsic motivation and an audience is called Giving, which is using your own creativity to help others in a tangible way. It is the presence of a specific end goal that is present in Giving that leads it to be classified as extrinsic motivation (Kaufman and Glaveanu, 2019, p. 31).
Theories of creativity have aided in understanding my motivation or procrastination with creativity and production. Wallas has theorised the five-stage model of the cognitive creative process which aids in understanding the creative process. This starts with preparation, in which the problem solver begins to study and gather knowledge. Next comes incubation, in which the mind keeps thinking about the question even if the person is doing other tasks. The third stage, intimation, is the moment of realising a breakthrough is imminent. In the illumination phase, the person has the “aha” moment — the awaited insight in which the solution appears. Finally, the verification phase is when the idea is tested, expanded, and implemented (Kaufman and Glaveanu, 2019, p. 32). Researchers developed a new interest in mental processes and cognitive ability underpinning the entire creativity cycle, relating creativity to intellect. “An example of this influential model is Guilford’s (1950, 1967) Structure of Intellect model. Although primarily an intelligence theory, creativity figured prominently; it was not until Sternberg’s (1985) Triarchic Theory and modified theory of Successful Intelligence (Sternberg, 1996) that another intelligence framework so heavily featured creativity (Kaufman & Plucker, 2011). Two of Guilford’s proposed thought processes were divergent and convergent thinking”, with divergent thinking relating to processes of creativity (Kaufman and Glaveanu, 2019, p. 32). “Galenson (2005, 2009) proposed an interesting way of characterising the creative process in the case of solo creators. He distinguished between two types of creators: conceptual and experimental”(Kaufman and Glaveanu, 2019, p. 33). As a solo creator, I believe I have aspects of both conceptual and experimental creators.
Conceptual creators (such as Picasso), start from an idea and try to find the best way of putting it into practice, and experimental creators (such as Cézanne), continually looked for the best way of perfecting their practice through trial and error and plenty of experimentation (Kaufman and Glaveanu, 2019, p. 34).
Creativity is a human activity and given that most human activities are performed together with others, does collaboration enhance creativity? “Alex Osborn (1957) invented brainstorming claiming that people can produce twice as many ideas when working together than when they are alone” (Kaufman and Glaveanu, 2019, p. 34). I also came to the same conclusion after the creative activity was completed in pairs, we produced twice as many ideas. Literature on collaborative creativity sheds new light on this by drawing on sociocultural scholarship. Vygotsky (1978) suggested that children, as they grow, internalise knowledge and acquire skills in interaction with others. Through this interaction, they are capable of performing tasks they could not do alone. He called this the zone of proximal development (which also includes mentorship or teaching). John-Steiner (1992) studied this potential of social interaction to foster learning and creativity in relation to real-life, long-term collaborations. She found that productive collaborations are characterised by tensions, complementarity, and emergence (Kaufman and Glaveanu, 2019, p. 34–35). Taking this idea of productive creative collaborators, Glăveanu (2015b) theorised the Perspectival Model proposing that we acquire the perspective of others (our collaborators) on the situation or the creative problem. “Creativity is conceptualised in terms of dialogues between different perspectives and the capacity to reflect on one’s position from the standpoint of another person. These processes (perspective-taking and reflexivity) are cultivated within social interactions and when fostered within-group interactions can make the difference between low and high productivity” (Kaufman and Glaveanu, 2019, p. 35). So when in creative collaboration, if I take on others' perspectives and be reflexive, the productivity of the creativity also multiplies. Other factors that play a crucial role when creating together are uncovered within the social-cognition literature. De Dreu and colleagues (2011) discuss the Motivated Information Processing in Groups Model, which sees group creativity and innovation as a function of both epistemic motivation and prosocial motivation. Different conditions are considered to play a part in this dynamic, including time constraints, openness to experience, and the existence of a shared identity.
Kaufman and Glaveanu discuss products and how they change their domain in reverence to creativity. The Propulsion Model of Creativity outlines eight types of creative contributions that are categorised by how they propel the domain forward. Four maintain the existing paradigm. Conceptual replications, simply reproduce or reinforce past creative work. Redefinitions stay within the same domain but have a new angle or perspective. Forward incrementations push things slightly forward on a small scale. Advance forward incrementations go further to advance things, to the point of sometimes being too far ahead of their time to be appreciated. The remaining four are ways of either rejecting or replacing the existing paradigm. Redirections try to alter the direction a domain is moving. Reconstructions/Redirections not only want to alter the direction but to go back to a past period of time and ignore recent developments. Integrations aim to merge two different areas together to synthesize into a new domain. Reinitiations want to dramatically alter and reinvent a domain, virtually creating their own starting point and end goal. People who try to reinitiate a field are likely those who are willing to defy the crowd, themselves, and the Zeitgeist — Sternberg’s ultimate creatives and future change-makers (Kaufman and Glaveanu, 2019, p. 36–37). Relating these theories to my own creative practice of music production which I usually pursue as a solo activity, I am often an integrator, merging ideas to synthesise a new domain and in the process, defy the crowd and the zeitgeist, my biggest challenge is to defy myself and step beyond my own beliefs.
This has been a valuable experience that has helped me to understand my creativity and why I can at times procrastinate when working on solo creative activities, as the lack of social interaction minimises the intrinsic motivation or enjoyment of the task. This learning experience has led to personal and professional insights that will serve me in my future career and in life generally. Applying this new knowledge as a teacher or lecturer, I’ve witnessed the demonstrated value of group work for creative ideation. Also doing a similar activity in-class aids in my students learning about their own creativity. Within my own solo creative practice, I will endeavour to seek collaboration or feedback when procrastinating or at a creative block. Or rediscover what I’m curious or passionate about with the project to stay motivated.
References
Kaufman and Glaveanu. (2019). A Review of Creativity Theories: What Questions Are We Trying to Answer? The Cambridge handbook of creativity. (Ed. James C. Kaufman & Robert J. Sternberg). Cambridge University Press: London UK.
