Journal of Creative Behavior最新文献

The 2022 cycle of the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) included an assessment of creative thinking, representing the most comprehensive international large-scale assessment of creative thinking to date. In this paper, we briefly present the objectives of PISA and how these goals have shaped its overall design and implementation, with important methodological, analytical, and interpretive implications for researchers. We then provide an overview of the conceptual and methodological foundations of the PISA creative thinking assessment and discuss how these were shaped within the broader context and constraints of PISA, particularly the feasibility of implementing scoring methods for open constructed responses at scale and maximizing cross-cultural comparability of the results. We present in detail our approach to scoring the creative thinking tasks in PISA given these complex trade-offs and discuss the implications of this approach for interpreting the PISA creative thinking results and conducting further analyses of the data. We also provide some reflections on future work for the OECD and beyond for assessing creative thinking at scale.

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.

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.