The Two‐Conditions View of Creativity

Abstract

In‐an attempt to overcome the difficulties people face in defining the complex concept “creativity,” the present paper will consider creativity as two basic conditions: (a) as an interaction condition, and (b) as a transformation‐imagination‐fantasy condition. Creativity is a process that is the combination of these conditions of interaction, transformation, imagination, and fantasy. These conditions operate simultaneously in the activities of individuals. Indeed, none of them can stand alone, since one implies the others if creativity is to occur.

Creative Expression and Its Evaluation on Work‐Related Verbal Tasks: A Comparison of Chinese and German Samples

“…This manipulation is based on the theory that situations requiring creative thinking often involve some level of ambiguity (Sternberg & Lubart, ) which is commonly used in various creativity‐ and interpretation related tasks: “Ambiguous representations open up a space for interpretation leading to an understanding of the problem” (Yamamoto & Nakakoji, , p. 518). Obscurity and ambiguity stimulate fantasy and imagination, both of which are considered essential for creativity (Mellou, ). Note that the visual material was applied to both groups; specifics of the material are, therefore, impossible to explain potential differences between the examined groups.…”

The Interactive Influences of Three Ecological Systems on R & D Employees' Technological Creativity

“…Amabile, 1988;Donnelly, 1994;Feldhusen, 1995;Mellou, 1996;Oldham & Cummings, 1996;Runco, 1996;Runco et al, 1998;Simonton, 2000;Sternberg, 1995Sternberg, , 2000Sternberg & Lubart, 1996;Torrance, 1988), interviews with highly creative people in information technology (Yeh, 1999), and an empirical study in information technology companies (Yeh, 2000), I have identified nine categories of elements that stem from the personal characteristics that are crucial to technological creativity. These are:…”

“…Because creativity may vary across domains, a revised or a new conceptual model specifically pertaining to the field of "technology" is required for studying the technological creativity of R & D staff. Traditionally, creativity is defined from the perspective of one of the "4Ps," or, to be more precise, from the viewpoint of person (Feldhusen, 1995;Mellou, 1996;Oldham & Cummings, 1996), process (Koestler, 1969;Torrance, 1988), place/press (Amabile, 1988;Amabile, Conti, Lazenby, & Herron, 1996, Oldham & Cummings, 1996, and product (Amabile, 1996;Sternberg & Lubert, 1996). Recently, researchers have begun to interpret creativity from a more holistic, dynamic, and multidimensional perspective, with the result that many proposed theories and models now abound (Amabile, 1996;Csikszentmihalyi, 1990;Gruber & Davis, 1988;Lubart & Getz, 1997;Runco, 1996;Runco, Nemiro, & Walberg, 1998;Sternberg & Lubert, 1996).…”

Towards a Comprehensive Understanding of Lead Userness: The Search for Individual Creativity

“…According to Amabile's (1996) model, creativity‐relevant skills include an appropriate cognitive style, which, in general, ‘refers to a person's consistent pattern of processing information and organising it into a system of thought which influences behaviour’ (Foxall & Haskins, 1987, p. 65). There is broad agreement among researchers that some operations of the human cognitive system are more likely to lead to original problem solving than others (Barron & Harrington, 1981; Matherly & Goldsmith, 1985; Mellou, 1996; Sternberg & Lubart, 1999). Differences in cognitive styles might explain the ‘something extra’ that characterizes creative work (Amabile, 1996; Sternberg, O'Hara & Lubart, 1997).…”