“Generic” Creativity as a Predictor or Outcome of Identity Development?

Abstract

In this brief commentary to Kaufman’s call for a “new agenda for positive outcomes” of creativity research, I emphasize how the broad construct of “identity” qualifies as such an outcome. While doing so, I challenge the issue of directionality (predictor vs. outcome) of creativity in relation to relevant correlates by outlining the influence of epistemological position and publication bias in directional interpretations of correlational findings. Through illustrations of various levels of relationships between creativity and identity, I also urge creativity researchers to be more explicit regarding how “generic” creativity is being operationalized in their study, so that more targeted hypotheses regarding the relationship between distinct aspects of creativity and such positive out-come variables may be formulated.

Creativity assessment in psychological research: (Re)setting the standards.

“…We do have the vocabulary and conceptual distinctions to do so, and being more rigorous on that matter would avoid a view of creativity as a loose or elusive entity. A greater accuracy in defining the specific aspects of creativity accounted for in a given study would also increase the accuracy of predictions than can be made about a particular facet of creativity and facilitate metaanalytic work (Barbot, 2018c): Inconsistencies in measurement methods are often the greatest moderator of meta-analytic findings on a range of topics, such as the relationship between creativity and academic achievement (e.g., Gajda, Karwowski, & Beghetto, 2017), self-esteem (Deng & Zhang, 2011), or creativity training program effectiveness (e.g., Scott, Leritz, & Mumford, 2004). Last, but not least, researchers should remain aware of crosscultural differences in the conceptualization of creativity, as well as its relativity vis-a `-vis shifting definitions, interpretation of task prompts, and even solution space in creative problem-solving tasks (Glaveanu, 2019).…”

“…generic-creativity measures (Barbot, 2018c). This is not necessarily a challenge, as long as the particular facet(s) of the creativity phenomenon being investigated are themselves clearly defined and operationalized.…”

Measuring creativity change and development.

“…There are SCDs of some specific aspects of creative achievements, performance, or potential (including various cognitive and noncognitive factors). These distinctions are not trivial: DT measures, as well as production-based tasks of “creative performance,” are often used as a proxy for measuring “generic creativity” (Barbot, 2018c). This view inadequately operationalizes the multivariate, domain-specific nature of creativity outlined by Guilford (1950) and well confirmed since then.…”

Creativity and creative potential in early childhood education.

“…Creative potential results from a combination of factors associated with each of the four Ps, as described previously. For example, creative potential is influenced by the resources a person has, including personality characteristics, motivation and interest in a subject, and other resources that could be used to support creative pursuits (e.g., Barbot, 2018).…”