Comment on “The Psychology of Creativity: A Critical Reading” by Vlad Petre Glăveanu

• Authors: Beth A. Hennessey
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

In this commentary, I applaud Glăveanu’s attempts to shake things up and introduce some much-needed disruption into the study of creativity. Glăveanu is a “ big thinker” and he is correct to worry about the growing fragmentation of the field. I share his concern that the so-called “ social psychology of creativity” really isn’t all that social. Most researchers and theorists continue to decontextualize creativity, giving little attention to the cultural and environmental factors that contribute to creativity of performance. Yet Glăveanu also presents some arguments with which I disagree. Most striking is his apparent misunderstanding of the purpose and functioning of the Consensual Assessment Technique (CAT). In addition, I am less surprised than is Glăveanu about the current state of our field. The same narrowing of research questions plagues every branch of the study of psychology. However, the tides may be changing. At the forefront of a reform movement are a number of creativity theorists and journal editors. My own hope is that as researchers are given license to expand their work to include a wide variety of experimental designs, methodologies and contexts, they will adopt as their core mission the promotion of the growth of creativity at the individual, group, societal and multi-cultural levels.

Keywords

EN

Fragmentation; Intrinsic motivation; Social psychology of creativity; CAT

• Publisher: Sciendo
• Journal: Creativity. Theories – Research - Applications
• Year: 2015
• Volume: 2
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 32-37

Dates

published

2015-06-01

received

2014-10-09

revised

2014-12-18

accepted

2014-12-19

online

2015-05-26

Contributors

author

Beth A. Hennessey

• Wellesley College, USA

References

• Amabile, T.M. (1982). The social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 997–1013.
• Beghetto, R.A. (2014). Comment: Toward avoiding an empirical march to nowhere. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 8, 18-20.
• Cumming, G. (2014). The new statistics: Why and how. Psychological Science, 25, 7-29.[PubMed][WoS][Crossref]
• Dollinger, S.J., & Shafran, M. (2005). Note on consensual assessment technique in creativity research. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 100, 592–598.
• Glăveanu, V. P. (2014). The psychology of creativity: A critical reading. Creativity. Theories – Research – Applications, 1, 10-32; DOI: 10.15290/ctra.2014.01.01.02.
• Hennessey, B.A. (2003). Is the social psychology of creativity really social?: Moving beyond a focus on the individual. In P. Paulus, & B. Nijstad (Eds.), Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration (pp. 181-201). New York: Oxford University Press.
• Hennessey, B.A. (1994). The consensual assessment technique: An examination of there lationship between ratings of product and process creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 7, 193–208.[WoS][Crossref]
• Hennessey, B.A., & Amabile, T.M. (2010). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 569-598.[WoS]
• Hennessey, B.A., Kim G., Zheng G., & Sun, W. (2008). A multi-cultural application of the consensual assessment technique. The International Journal of Creativity and Problem Solving, 18, 87–100.
• Makel, M.C., & Plucker, J.A. (2014). Facts are more important than novelty: Replication in the Education Sciences. Educational Researcher, 43, 304-316.
• Nosek, B., & Lakens, D. (Eds.). (2014). Special volume of Social Psychology,45(3).

Identifiers

DOI

10.1515/ctra-2015-0004