National Differences in Creativity Questions Questions based on viewing “The Corporation” (began in Week Three): 1. What are the similarities and differen

National Differences in Creativity Questions Questions based on viewing “The Corporation” (began in Week Three):

1. What are the similarities and differences across the era of global trade, industry, and the corporation as described in Chapter 3?

2. How are capitalism and “the corporation” as developed in the United States not necessary for each other–capitalism without strong independent corporations as legal persons and vice versa?

3. Is the modern corporation simply an economic construction based on market needs and rational management? If not, what are some other ways of thinking about what a corporation is in terms of legal, cultural, and political history?

4. How is the concept of “creativity” useful to a modern corporation required to maximize profits for shareholders above all else?

5. In what ways are corporations examples of functioning meritocracies and in what ways are they disguising the lack of true meritocracy for all? CREATIVITY1
J. P. GUILFORD
University of Southern California
I
DISCUSS the subject of creativity with considerable hesitation, for it represents an area in
which psychologists generally, whether they be
angels or not, have feared to tread. It has been one
of my long-standing ambitions, however, to undertake an investigation of creativity. Circumstances
have just recently made possible the realization of
that ambition.2 But the work has been started only
within the past year. Consequently, if you are
expecting answers based upon new empirical research you will be disappointed. What I can do
at this time is to describe the plans for that research and to report the results of considerable
thinking, including the hypotheses at which my
students and I have arrived after a survey of the
field and its problems. The research design, although not essentially new, should be of some interest. I will also point out some implications of
the problems of creativity in vocational and educational practices.
SOME DEFINITIONS AND QUESTIONS
In its narrow sense, creativity refers to the abilities that are most characteristic of creative people.
Creative abilities determine whether the individual
has the power to exhibit creative behavior to a
noteworthy degree. Whether or not the individual
who has the requisite abilities will actually produce
results of a creative nature will depend upon his
motivational and temperamental traits. To the
psychologist, the problem is as broad as the qualities
that contribute significantly to creative productivity. In other words, the psychologist’s problem
is that of creative personality.
In defining personality, as well as other concepts
preparatory to an investigation, definitions of an
operational type are much to be preferred. I have
often defined an individual’s personality as his
unique pattern of traits. A trait is any relatively
1
Address of the President of the American Psychological
Association at Pennsylvania State College, September 5,
19SO.
2
A research project on the aptitudes of high-level personnel, supported by the Office of Naval Research.
enduring way in which persons differ from one
another. The psychologist is particularly interested
in those traits that are manifested in performance;
in other words,’in behavior traits. Behavior traits
come under the broad categories of aptitudes, interests, attitudes, and temperamental qualities. By
aptitude we ordinarily mean a person’s readiness to
learn to do certain types of things. There is no
necessary implication in this statement as to the
source of the degree of readiness. It could be
brought about through hereditary determination
or through environmental determination; usually,
if not always, by an interaction of the two. By
interest we usually mean the person’s inclination
or urge to engage in some type of activity. By
attitude we mean his tendency to favor or not
to favor (as shown objectively by approach-withdrawal behavior) some type of object or situation.
Temperamental qualities describe a person’s general
emotional disposition: for example, his optimism,
his moodiness, his self-confidence, or his nervousness.
Creative personality is then a matter of those
patterns of traits that are characteristic of creative
persons. A creative pattern is manifest in creative
behavior, which includes such activities as inventing, designing, contriving, composing, and planning.
People who exhibit these types of behavior to a
marked degree are recognized as being creative.
There are certain aspects of creative genius that
have aroused questions in the minds of those who
have reflected much about the matter. Why is
creative productivity a relatively infrequent phenomenon? Of all the people who have lived in
historical times, it has been estimated that only
about two in a million have become really distinguished (5). Why do so many geniuses spring
from parents who are themselves very far from
distinguished? Why is there so little apparent
correlation between education and creative productiveness? Why do we not produce a larger
number of creative geniuses than we do, under
supposedly enlightened, modern educational practices? These are serious questions for thought and
444
CREATIVITY
investigation. The more immediate and more explorable problem is a double one: (1) How can we
discover creative promise in our children and our
youth? and (2) How can we promote the development of creative personalities?
NEGLECT OF THE STUDY OF CREATIVITY
The neglect of this subject by psychologists is
appalling. The evidences of neglect are so obvious
that I need not give proof. But the extent of the
neglect I had not realized until recently. To obtain
a more tangible idea of the situation, I examined
the index of the Psychological Abstracts for each
year since its origin. Of approximately 121,000
titles listed in the past 23 years, only 186 were
indexed as definitely bearing on the subject of
creativity. The topics under which such references
are listed include creativity, imagination, originality, thinking, and tests in these areas. In other
words, less than two-tenths of one per cent of the
books and articles indexed in the Abstracts for approximately the past quarter century bear directly
on this subject. Few of these advance our understanding or control of creative activity very much.
Of the large number of textbooks on general psychology, only two have devoted separate chapters
to the subject during the same period.
Hutchinson, reviewing the publications on the
process of creative thinking to the year 1931, concluded that the subject had hardly been touched by
anyone (7). Markey, reviewing the subject of imagination four years later, reported very little more
in the way of a fundamental contribution to the
subject ( 9 ) .
Some of you will undoubtedly feel that the subject of creative genius has not been as badly
neglected as I have indicated, because of the common belief that genius is largely a matter of intelligence and the IQ. Certainly, that subject has
not been neglected. But, for reasons which will
be developed later, I believe that creativity and
creative productivity extend well beyond the domain of intelligence.
Another important reason for the neglect, of
course, is the difficulty of the problems themselves.
A practical criterion of creativity is difficult to
establish because creative acts of an unquestioned
order of excellence are extremely rare. In this
respect, the situation is much like that of a criterion
,for accident proneness which calls for the actual
occurrence of accidents. The accidental nature of
445
many discoveries and inventions is well recognized.
This is partly due to the inequality of stimulus or
opportunity, which is largely a function of the
environment rather than of individuals. But if
environmental occasions were equal, there would
still be great differences in creative productivity
among individuals.
There are, however, greater possibilities of observing individual differences in creative performance if we revise our standards, accepting examples
of lower degrees of distinction. Such instances are
more numerous. But even if we can detect and accept as creative cer.tain acts of lower degrees of excellence, there are other difficulties. Creative people
differ considerably in performance from time to
time. Some writers on the subject even speak of
rhythms of creativity. This means that any criterion, and probably any tests of creativity as
well, would show considerable error variance due to
function fluctuation. Reliabilities of tests of creative abilities and of creative criteria will probably
be generally low. There are ways of meeting such
difficulties, however. We should not permit them
to force us to keep foot outside the domain.
Another reason for the oversight of problems of
creativity is a methodological one. Tests designed
to measure intelligence have fallen into certain
stereotyped patterns, under the demands for objectivity and for scoring convenience. I do not
now see how some of the creative abilities,-at least,
can be measured by means of anything but completion tests of some kind. To provide the creator
with the finished product, as in a multiple-choice
item, may prevent him from showing precisely what
we want him to show: his own creation. I am not
opposed to the use of the multiple-choice or other
objectively scorable types of test items in their
proper places. What I am saying is that the quest
for easily objectifiable testing and scoring has
directed us away from the attempt to measure
some of the most precious qualities of individuals
and hence to ignore those qualities.
Still another reason for the neglect of the problems of creativity is to be found in certain emphases
we have given to the investigations of learning.
For one thing, much learning research has been
done with lower animals in which signs of creativity are almost nonexistent. For another thing,
learning theory has been generally formulated to
cover those phenomena that are easiest to order in
logical schema. Learning theorists have had con-
THE AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST
446
siderable difficulty with the behavior known as insight, to which creative behavior shows much apparent relationship (.75). It is proper to say that
a creative act is an instance of learning, for it represents a change in behavior that is due to stimulation and/or response. A comprehensive learning
theory must take into account both insight and
creative activity.
THE SOCIAL IMPORTANCE
OF CREATIVITY
There is general recognition, on the part of those
outside the academic fold, at least, of the importance
of the quest for knowledge about creative disposition. I can cite recent evidences of the general
interest in the discovery and development of creative talent. Large industries that employ many
research scientists and engineers have held serious
meetings and have had symposia written about the
subject ( 9 ) . There is much questioning into the
reasons why graduates from the same institutions
of higher learning, with high scholastic records and
with strong recommendations, differ so widely in
output of new ideas. The enormous economic
value of new ideas is generally recognized. One
scientist or engineer discovers a new principle or
develops a new process that revolutionizes an industry, while dozens of others merely do a passable
job on the routine tasks assigned to them.
Various branches of the government, as you all
know, are now among the largest employers of
scientific and technical personnel. These employers,
also, are asking how to recognize the individuals
who have inventive potentialities. The most common complaint I have heard concerning our college
graduates in these positions is that while they can
do assigned tasks with a show of mastery of the
techniques they have learned, they are much too
helpless when called upon to solve a problem where
new paths are demanded.
Both industry and governmental agencies are also
looking for leaders. Men of good judgment, planning ability, and inspiring vision are in great demand. How can leaders with imagination and
vision be discovered? Can such qualities be developed? If those qualities can be promoted by
educational procedures, what are those procedures?
We hear much these days about the remarkable
new thinking machines. We are told that these
machines can be made to take over much of men’s
thinking and that the routine thinking of many industries will eventually be done without the employ-
ment of human brains. We are told that this will
entail an industrial revolution that will pale into
insignificance the first industrial revolution. The
first one made man’s muscles relatively useless; the
second one is expected to make man’s brain also
relatively useless. There are several implications
in these possibilities that bear upon the importance
of creative thinking. In the first place, it would
be necessary to develop an economic order in which
sufficient employment and wage earning would still
be available. This would require creative thinking
of an unusual order and speed. In the second place,
eventually about the only economic value of brains
left would be in the creative thinking of which
they are capable. Presumably, there would still be
need for human brains to operate the machines and
to invent better ones.
SOME GENERAL THEORIES OF THE NATURE OF
CREATIVITY
It is probably only a layman’s idea that the creative person is peculiarly gifted with a certain quality
that ordinary people do not have. This conception
can be dismissed by psychologists, very likely by
common consent. The general psychological conviction seems to be that all individuals possess to
some degree all abilities, except for the occurrence
of pathologies. Creative acts can therefore be expected, no matter how feeble or how infrequent,
of almost all individuals. The important consideration here is the concept of continuity. Whatever
the nature of creative talent may be, those persons
who are recognized as creative merely have more of
what all of us have. It is this principle of continuity that makes possible the investigation of
creativity in people who are not necessarily distinguished.
The conception that creativity is bound up with
intelligence has many followers among psychologists. Creative acts are expected from those of
high IQ and not expected from those of low IQ.
The term “genius,” which was developed to describe
people who distinguish themselves because of creative productivity, has been adopted to describe the
child with exceptionally high IQ. Many regard
this as unfortunate, but the custom seems to have
prevailed.
There is much evidence of substantial, positive
correlations between IQ as measured by an intelligence test and certain creative talents, but
the extent of the correlations is unknown. The
CREATIVITY
work of Terman and his associates is the best
source of evidence of these correlations; and yet,
this evidence is not decisive. Although it was
found that distinguished men of history generally
had high estimated IQ’s, it is not certain that indicators in the form of creative behavior have not
entered into those estimations (2). It would be
much more crucial to know what the same individuals would have done on intelligence tests
when they were children. Terman’s study of the
thousand children of exceptionally high IQ’s who
have now reached maturity does not throw much
light on this theory. Among the group there is
plenty of indication of superior educational attainment and of superior vocational and social adjustment. On the other hand, there seems to be as
yet little promise of a Darwin, an Edison, or a
Eugene O’Neill, although the members of the group
have reached the age level that has come to be
recognized as the “most creative years.” The
writers on that study recognize this fact and account for it on the basis of the extreme rarity of
individuals of the calibre of those whom I have
mentioned (11). It is hoped that further followup studies will give due attention to criteria of a
more specifically creative character.
When we look into the nature of intelligence tests,
we encounter many doubts concerning their coverage of creative abilities. It should be remembered
that from the time of Binet to the present, the
chief practical criterion used in the validation of
tests of intellect has been achievement in school.
For children, this has meant largely achievement in
reading and arithmetic. This fact has generally
determined the nature of our intelligence tests.
Operationally, then, intelligence has been the ability
(or complex of abilities) to master reading and
arithmetic and similar subjects. These subjects
are not conspicuously demanding of creative talent.
Examination of the content of intelligence tests
reveals very little that is of an obviously creative
nature. Binet did include a few items of this
character in his scale because he regarded creative
imagination as one of the important higher mental
functions that should be included. Revisions of the
Binet scale have retained such items, but they represent only a small minority. Group tests of intelligence have generally omitted such items entirely.
The third general theory about creativity is, in
fact, a theory of the entire personality, including
447
intelligence. I have defined personality as a unique
pattern of traits, and traits as a matter of individual
differences. There are thousands of observable
traits. The scientific urge for rational order and
for economy in the description of persons directs us
to look for a small number of descriptive categories.
In describing mental abilities, this economy drive
has been grossly overdone when we limit ourselves
to the single concept of intelligence. Furthermore,
the term “intelligence” has by no means achieved
logical or operational invariance and so does not
satisfy the demand for rational order.
We do not need the thousands of descriptive
terms because they are much interrelated, both
positively and negatively. By intercorrelation procedures it is possible to determine the threads of
consistency that run throughout the categories
describing abilities, interests, and temperament variables. I am, of course, referring to the factorial
conception of personality. From this point of view,
personality is conceived geometrically as a hypersphere of n dimensions, each dimension being a dependable, convenient reference variable or concept.
If the idea of applying this type of description to
a living, breathing individual is distasteful, remember that this geometric picture is merely a conceptual model designed to encompass the multitude
of observable facts, and to do it in a rational,
communicable, and economical manner.
With this frame of reference, many of the findings and issues become clarified. The reason that
different intelligence tests do not intercorrelate
perfectly, even when errors of measurement have
been taken into account, is that each test emphasizes a different pattern of primary abilities. If
the correlations between intelligence-test scores and
many types of creative performance are only moderate or low, and I predict that such correlations will
be found, it is because the primary abilities represented in those tests are not all important for
creative behavior. It is also because some of the
primary abilities important for creative behavior
are not represented in the test at all. It is probably
safe to say that the typical intelligence test measures to a significant degree not more than a halfdozen of the intellectual factors ( 8 ) . There are
surely more intellectual factors than that. Some of
the abilities contributing to creative success are
probably non-intellectual; for example, some of
them are perceptual. Probably, some of the factors most crucial to creative performance have not
448
THE AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST
yet been discovered in any type of test. In other
words, we must look well beyond the boundaries of
the IQ if we are to fathom the domain of creativity.
DEVELOPMENT OF CREATIVITY
Before referring to the experimental design and
to more specific hypotheses concerning the nature of
creativity, I will venture one or two opinions on the
general problem of the development of creativity.
For I believe that much can be done to encourage
its development. This development might be in the
nature of actual strengthening of the functions involved or it might mean the better utilization of
what resources the individual possesses, or both.
In any case, a knowledge of the functions is
important.
We frequently hear the charge that under presentday mass-education methods, the development of
creative personality is seriously discouraged. The
child is under pressure to conform for the sake of
economy and for the sake of satisfying prescribed
standards. We are told by the philosophers who
have given thought to the problem that the unfolding of a creative personality is a highly individual
matter which stresses uniqu…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment