Multilingualism and Creativity by Kharkhurin Anatoliy V.;

Author:Kharkhurin, Anatoliy V.;
Language: eng
Format: epub
ISBN: 1024796
Publisher: Multilingual Matters
Published: 2012-08-15T00:00:00+00:00

Ambiguous Definitions of the Creativity Construct in Scientific Research

The previous section presents an argument that divergent thinking tests provide an ambiguous assessment of an individual’s creative potential. Are there other tests in the field that supply more reliable evaluation of this construct? Yes, there are, but, as Chapter 1 indicates, the tests employed in creativity research have a low convergent validity because they provided mixed assessments with no strong correlation among each other. One of the reasons for this discrepancy stems from the definition of the construct itself. Most current scientific research utilizes a definition of ‘creativity’ that emphasizes the novelty of what is being created. What emerges should be original and unexpected, and in many instances these products were, in fact, creative, at least by this definition. However, there may be an array of other factors that play an important role in creative enterprise and that are largely disregarded by most existing scientific endeavors. This section reviews the empirical findings and theoretical considerations that present a counterargument to the validity of the generally accepted definition of creativity construct.

The results of the IAC test demonstrated that the capacity for invariant violation predicted the creativity rating of independent judges (Kharkhurin, 2009). The drawings in which the invariant characteristics (bilateral symmetry, eyes and limbs) were different from more ordinary terrestrial creatures were given higher creativity scores by the raters. The latter were instructed to look at each drawing and decide how creative they think the creature is and judge the creativity by placing it on one of the six folders in front of them. Each folder was marked 1 through 6: ‘1’ corresponds to a very low creativity rating, ‘6’ corresponds to a very high creativity rating, and ‘3’ or ‘4’ correspond to medium creativity ratings. The raters were encouraged to define creativity any way they liked. This finding suggests that people perceive the lack of the standard characteristics of a category as more creative. Similar results were obtained by Kozbelt and Durmysheva (2007), although the effect they found was rather small. They also reported other findings demonstrating similar effect: Ward, Patterson and Sifonis, for example, found that novelty ratings of the creatures were correlated with the scores based in part on the absence of senses, appendages and symmetry.

What does make people perceive atypical exemplars of a category as more creative? As was mentioned earlier, the focal feature of most standard definitions of creativity traditionally refers to originality in thinking and its closely related property of novelty. Researchers perceive creativity as something ‘contrasting with conformity,’ ‘that breaks out of a mould and is surprising in light of what was known at the time of the discovery’ (Niu & Sternberg, 2001: 226). Some of them take a more radical position and claim that in order to consider an act as creative, novelty should be complemented by a modification or rejection of previously accepted ideas (Kaufmann, 2003). The philosophical roots of creativity relate this concept to invention (the ancient Greek word corresponding to creation is poiein, ‘invention,’ Niu & Sternberg, 2006), which means bringing something new into being.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.