Wang, M., Takahashi, Y., & Cheung, C. (2024). The interplay between negative activating emotions, family expressiveness, and gender: Implications for creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 58(4), 561–576. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.684
The Dryad link originally provided in the Data Availability Statement is no longer active. The data supporting the findings of this study are available on the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/zh38t/).
We apologize for this error.
Since the introduction of Generative AI several years ago, there has been much debate regarding the capacity of this technology for creativity. This paper applies the standard definition of creativity to the output of Large Language Models (LLMs) and shows not only that this can be calculated ex ante, but that LLM output creativity has a fundamental upper limit. This upper limit, determined by the mechanism used to produce LLM outputs, moreover, is constrained to a level equivalent to the boundary between little-c and Pro-c creativity. Consequently, LLM creativity is mathematically constrained to a level equivalent to the boundary between amateur and professional human creativity. This has significant implications for claims about AI autonomy in creative tasks.
The Aha! experience—a sudden joy of understanding after numerous attempts to solve a problem—represents one of the key moments of insight problem solving. Although definitions of the Aha! experience vary from descriptions emphasizing the suddenness and obviousness of the solution to those highlighting the fundamental role of positive emotions, many insight studies assume that the Aha! experience is holistic. To test this assumption, we collected a dataset of previously published studies in which participants used metacognitive assessments (pleasure, surprise, suddenness, relief, certainty, drive) to evaluate their solution process. Using exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, we compared one-factor and two-factor models of the Aha! experience. Results revealed that a two-factor model fit the data statistically better than a one-factor model, with surprise and suddenness forming one-factor, while pleasure, relief, certainty, and drive formed another. We hypothesized these factors might correspond to different insight sequences: pop-out solutions or true insight following impasse and representational change. However, this hypothesis was not supported when using solution time as a proxy for insight sequence type. These findings suggest the Aha! experience is not a unitary construct but comprises multiple components potentially linked to different psychological mechanisms.
Peer evaluations of creativity are common practice in numerous contexts. Within such contexts, creators often receive and deliver assessments of creative ideas. One challenge of such arrangements is that people's experiences on the receiving end of creativity assessments may influence their future judgments of others' works. In particular, those who have recently faced creative idea rejection may be prone to negativity biases when evaluating the creativity of others' ideas. To understand whether and why receiving harsh critiques may lead one to propagate criticism, I present three possible explanations for such effects and test them experimentally in a sample of 205 university students. Specifically, I argue that creative idea rejection can fuel negativity biases in subsequent interpersonal creativity evaluations through (a) negative and positive affective reactions, (b) attempts to re-establish justice, and (c) attempts to restore self-competence. Results suggest that recent experiences with idea rejection can negatively bias one's assessment of peers' idea usefulness (but not novelty) indirectly through reductions in positive emotion (rather than increases in negative emotion); and further, those who perceived injustice (but not lowered self-competence) rated others' ideas lower on both novelty and usefulness. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.
This study examined the longitudinal relationships between children's playfulness, creative thinking processes, and academic skills. Participants were 150 Chinese kindergarten children (52.7% boys; Time 1 age range = 4–5 years) and their parents. At Time 1, the parents reported demographic information and rated children's playfulness (social and cognitive spontaneity) by completing the questionnaire. Children were administered behavioral measurements of creative thinking processes (convergent and divergent thinking), Chinese word reading, and mathematics skills (forward counting, backward counting, number word comparison, arithmetic addition, and arithmetic subtraction). One year later, at Time 2, children completed the same behavioral assessments again. Results from a path analytic model revealed that the indirect relationship between playfulness at Time 1 and mathematics at Time 2, mediated through convergent thinking at Time 1, was positive and significant. Moreover, children's convergent thinking and mathematics skills reciprocally predicted each other. These findings suggest that playful kindergarten children might display better creative thinking and academic skills over time. Furthermore, the results highlight how encouraging children's playfulness and implementing play-based mathematics activities may nurture their creativity and academic skills.
The PISA 2022 Creative Thinking Assessment (CTA) is a notable step in recognizing creativity as a core educational competency. However, assessing creativity's complexity and socioculturally embedded nature requires capturing how students think and express creativity across diverse cultural, educational, and economic contexts. This commentary highlights key concerns, including CTA's standardized format that may inadequately capture cultural variations in creative expression. Moreover, the CTA's emphasis on written and visual responses potentially underrepresents kinesthetic, auditory, and collaborative forms of creativity, while classroom and environmental factors, such as teaching practices, appear to be overlooked despite their importance in fostering risk-taking and collaboration. The CTA's digital implementation introduces further constraints, as it excludes multimedia creativity—now a common mode of expression among students. These challenges are intensified by socioeconomic disparities, as students from under-resourced communities often have limited access to digital tools, potentially disadvantaging them in technology-mediated assessments despite their creative abilities. We suggest that addressing these limitations requires an interdisciplinary approach integrating insights from psychology, sociology, and education to develop nuanced models of creative potential. A more comprehensive assessment framework would better capture how creativity develops across cultural and socioeconomic contexts, fostering equitable and holistic assessments worldwide. Overall, this commentary underscores the need to rethink creativity assessments to reflect its dynamic and multifaceted nature.
Future-oriented thinking appears conducive to fostering creativity. However, various unreconciled theoretical accounts have been proposed, and whether past-oriented thinking facilitates creativity has been under-explored. By leveraging differing expectations associated with past-oriented thinking, this paper compares the (1) creativity-facilitating schemas, (2) construal level theory, and (3) conceptual combination hypotheses of how time-oriented thought relates to creativity. This research conducted two experiments simultaneously investigating past-, present-, and future-oriented thought (Study 1, N = 258) and inducing the juxtaposition of past and present time frames (Study 2, N = 205). Results replicated and supported the creativity-facilitating schema hypothesis. Furthermore, the current research revealed an interesting possibility that the schema and construal level explanations operate antagonistically to create a suppression effect in the link between past-oriented thinking and creativity. This research provides insights into how time-oriented thought impacts creativity and calls attention to some nuanced directions that future research could address.
This article explores the potential of response time-item response theory (RT-IRT) models to enhance creative thinking (CT) measurement in Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2022, which employs traditional IRT models (2PL and generalized partial credit) excluding response time (RT). Given traditional IRT's limitations in capturing cognitive processes, we explored how numerous advanced IRT models, particularly those that incorporate RT as valuable information, have been developed for model testing and comparison for large-scale assessment. In addition, we discuss the critical role of RT as demonstrated in the research literature, linking it to key aspects of creativity. We also explore the possibilities of connecting two types of RTs (i.e., the total time spent on task completion and the time from start to first action spent on each task) to patterns in creative performance across domains and stages, using RT-IRT models. Benefits and types of RT-IRT models (e.g., joint, diffusion, mixture) are further examined as they integrate RT to model speed–accuracy trade-offs, detect aberrant response behaviors, and enhance result interpretability by reflecting engagement and creative processes. Lastly, we propose RT-IRT models to leverage PISA 2022's RT data and provide process-oriented insights, improve ability estimates, and potentially prevent misclassification of spontaneously creative responses as careless ones.
This study explores the multifaceted nature of creativity in BMX riding by examining how riders interact with their physical and social environments to produce innovative movements and trail designs. Grounded in Perspective-Affordance Theory and the principles of embodied cognition, the research highlights that creativity in BMX emerges from the interplay between an individual's shifting perspective and the environmental affordances available in urban and natural settings. Semi-structured interviews with 26 BMX riders reveal that creativity in BMX is embedded in physical action, community dynamics, and the negotiation of risk and failure. The findings underscore the importance of socio-cultural support and individual risk-taking in shaping creative practices, offering new insights into how embodied experiences and environmental interactions drive creativity in action sports.
Creative thinking is a fundamental skill for addressing the challenges of the 21st century, fostering innovation, and contributing to social, economic, and cultural development. Recognizing its significance, the OECD introduced creative thinking as part of the PISA 2022 assessment. This assessment evaluates students' capacity to generate, evaluate, and improve ideas across various domains, including written and visual expression, social problem-solving, and scientific problem-solving. The scoring criteria for the PISA creative thinking emphasize appropriateness and originality, yet questions arise regarding aligning these operational definitions and broader creativity theories. This article discusses the alignment between creativity theory and the creative thinking PISA 2022 assessment framework, highlighting potential misalignments in the scoring rubrics that may impact the validity of inferences drawn from the data. It also addresses contextual biases inherent in scoring mechanisms and the implications for assessing creative thinking.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：