Creativity Syndrome: Integration, Application, and Innovation

Bulletin Copyright 1988 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.
103, No. 1,27-43 0033-2909/88/«00.75
Creativity Syndrome: Integration, Application, and Innovation
Michael D. Mumford Sigrid B. Gustafson

Georgia Institute of Technology University of Stockholm, Stockholm, Sweden
The present article is concerned with certain conceptual issues embodied in the description and
understanding of creative behavior. Initially, we argue that although creativity has been denned in
many ways, the ultimate concern in studies of creativity is the production of novel, socially valued
products. Subsequently, we review the literature pertaining to the development of innovative occupa-
tional achievement. We suggest that the integration and reorganization of cognitive structures is
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
likely to underlie major creative contributions and that the application of existing cognitive struc-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
tures is Hkely to underlie minor contributions. We then extend this interpretation to the processes
traditionally held to underlie individual differences in creativity and note that both the major and
minor forms of creativity will require a number of different knowledges, skills, and abilities. Further,
we suggest that the effective translation of ideas into action will depend on a variety of individual
and situational attributes. On the basis of these observations, we concluded that enhanced under-
standing and prediction will require a more sophisticated multivariate approach.
The quality of human life is greatly influenced by the creative this lack of integration may be attributed to the fact that, like
contributions of certain individuals (Albert, 1983). Thus, from intelligence, creativity represents a highly complex and diffuse
the time of Galton (1883), psychology has evidenced an abiding construct (Sternberg, 1985). Of somewhat greater import, how-
interest in the creative act. Much of this research has been car- ever, is the lack of a sound general definition of creative behav-
ried out in the hope that a sound understanding of the phenome- ior. Some investigators, such as Guilford (1950, 1967) and Kris
non would lead to more effective use of this precious social re- (1952), have defined creative behavior in terms of the produc-
source (Taylor, 1964). In recent years, this mission has become tion of ideas. Along similar lines, Tyler (1978) argued that cre-
substantially more important because of the high premium ativity involves the recognition of possibilities. In the work of
placed on creative talent in a world of rapid social and techno- MacKinnon (1962), it appears that creativity is considered an
logical change (Deva, 1984). As a result, the description, predic- attribute of personality or a particular kind of response style.
tion, and understanding of creative behavior has become a pri- On the other hand, Cattell (1971) seemed to conceive of creativ-
mary concern of applied psychologists, capable of generating ity as a form of problem-solving ability.
hundreds of articles each year (Barren & Harrington, 1981). The fact that the luminaries of differential psychology have
Unfortunately, one might legitimately wonder just where all employed such markedly different definitions might lead one
this activity has taken psychology. A review of the extant litera- to wonder whether it is really possible to construct a general
ture leaves one feeling like Alice, who, upon reading "Jabber- definition of this complex construct. Fortunately, however, it
wocky," commented, "Somehow it seems to fill my head with appears that these differences may be traced to the tendency of
ideas—only I don't exactly know what they are" (Carroll, 1872/ investigators to focus on different, albeit legitimate, aspects of
1974, p. 177). Although the field now possesses a far more de- the creative process rather than on creative behavior per se
tailed knowledge of the correlates of creativity than has pre- (Nicholls, 1972). Thus, it might be possible to formulate an op-
viously been available, it still lacks a consensual understanding erational definition of creativity by considering the kinds of cri-
of the creative act. In view of this situation, our intent in the teria commonly used to define it (Albert, 1975).
present article is to review the available literature and to pro- In nearly all studies of creativity, researchers use criterion
pose a tentative framework for the description and understand- measures drawn from one of three basic categories. The first
ing of creative behavior. category consists of overt production criteria, such as publica-
tion counts or patent awards. These measures assess creativity
Definitional Issues in terms of the frequency with which individuals generate inno-
Creative Behavior vative products having acknowledged social worth or the qual-
ity of these products (Cole, 1979; Lehman, 1966; Terman,
The question rising at this juncture is just why a consensual 1954). Second, professional recognition criteria assess creativ-
understanding of creativity has been slow to emerge. In part, ity in terms of the awards given individuals for the production
of new ideas or products held to be of some value in an occupa-
tional field (Roe, 1953; Zuckerman, 1974). Third, when social
We thank Bill Owens, Jack Feldman, Larry James, Tim Salthouse,
Don Grant, and Frank Harding for their comments and support.
recognition criteria are used, the judgments of knowledgeable
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Mi- others, such as peers or supervisors, afford a basis for assessing
chael D. Mumford, School of Psychology, Georgia Institute of Technol- the value of an individual's novel contribution in some area
ogy, Atlanta, Georgia 30332. (Getzels & Csikszentmihalyi, 1975; MacKinnon, 1962). Al-
27
28 MICHAEL D. MUMFORD AND SIGRID B. GUSTAFSON
though these criteria differ in many ways, they seem bound to- ual and the attributes of the environment. Therefore, creativity
gether by their common concern with the production of novel, appears to be best conceptualized as a syndrome involving a
socially valued products (Taylor, Smith, & Ghiselin, 1963). number of elements: (a) the processes underlying the individu-
The idea that creativity should be denned in terms of novel, al's capacity to generate new ideas or understandings, (b) the
socially valued products, instead of in terms of processes, has characteristics of the individual facilitating process operation,
received increasingly wide support over the years (Amabile, (c) the characteristics of the individual facilitating the transla-
1983; Ghiselin, 1963; Harmon, 1963). Busse and Mansfield tion of these ideas into action, (d) the attributes of the situation
(1980) argued that significant progress can be made in elucidat- conditioning the individual's willingness to engage in creative
ing creative processes only by studying creative accomplish- behavior, and (e) the attributes of the situation influencing eval-
ments within particular occupational fields. Similar arguments uation of the individual's productive efforts.
have been presented by Hausman (1979), Besemer and As might be expected, previous studies have examined poten-
Treffinger (1981), Bailin (1984), Hocevar (1981), and Briskman tial influences on creative behavior with respect to each of these
(1980), who have noted that it is only by reference to the innova- domains. Hence, in the ensuing discussion, we examine the
tive solution of significant problems that one can obtain an op- progress made in each area and the manner in which the associ-
erational referent for studying creative processes and determin- ated variables interact to determine the likelihood of creative
ing the meaning of creative potential. contributions. We begin this review by considering the ontog-
eny of innovative achievement in an attempt to draw some con-
clusions concerning the cognitive strategies influencing major
Definitional Implications
and minor contributions. Subsequently, we discuss the pro-
If the appropriateness of defining creative behavior as the cesses and differential attributes contributing to the effective ap-
production of novel solutions to significant social problems is plication of these strategies. Finally, we consider certain devel-
granted, then creativity is essentially being defined in terms of opmental and situational influences conditioning the likelihood
outstanding occupational achievement (Kogan, 1973; Lehman, of innovation, along with the broader practical and theoretical
1953). Given such a definition, certain broader implications be- implications of this effort.
come apparent. First, because the requirements for producing
these products may vary, depending on the type of problems
Age and Achievement
confronted in a particular occupational area, a great deal of
variability in the nature of creative behavior can be expected. Basic Findings
In fact, the existence of these cross-field differences has been
demonstrated in a number of studies of creativity (Ban-on & The preceding arguments suggest that the study of creativity
Harrington, 1981;Roe, 1953;Torrance, 1972),includinginves- should begin with an attempt to understand exactly how indi-
tigations concerned with implicit theories of creativity (Stern- viduals come to produce novel, socially valued products. One
berg, 1985). The existence of this behavioral variability in turn approach to this problem has been proposed by Fiske (1979)
suggests that attempts to understand and predict creative behav- and Sontag (1971), who suggested that the antecedent-conse-
ior in a more general sense must necessarily focus on those pro- quent information generated by developmental studies might
cesses likely to be common to all creative endeavors. provide a useful vehicle for attaining a preliminary understand-
Nevertheless, the definition of these common processes re- ing of such complex differential attributes as creativity. Sim-
quires that a distinction be maintained with respect to the level ilarly, Nicholls (1972) and Howe (1982) have argued that at-
of the creative undertaking. Ghiselin (1963) noted that the psy- tempts to understand creativity should begin with a careful ex-
chological processes underlying the production of major contri- amination of the developmental history of individuals who have
butions, in which the individual generates ideas or understand- made recognized creative contributions. Taken as a whole, these
ings used in solving a variety of problems, may not be equiva- observations suggest that a careful examination of the data con-
lent to the processes underlying the production of minor cerning the ontogeny of outstanding occupational achievement
contributions, in which the individual extends existing under- might prove of substantial value in attaining a more complete
standings to solve a more limited but still significant problem. understanding of the creativity syndrome.
Briskman (1980), too, emphasized that creative products vary Perhaps the most comprehensive developmental study of in-
in degree of significance. Although each creation reflects a rec- novative achievement may be found in Lehman's (1953, 1954,
ognized novel and useful solution, only those that meet the ad- 1958, 1960, 1966) attempt to determine the age at which indi-
ditional criterion of altering the very background of the solu- viduals are most likely to make notable contributions. Lehman
tions from which they originated can be labeled "transcendent (1953, 1966) addressed this issue by using standard reference
products" (Briskman, 1980, p. 97). This distinction is also ap- sources to identify those individuals who had made significant
parent in Besemer and Treffinger's (1981) comment that some contributions in various occupational fields. He then deter-
but not all creative products transform the manner in which mined the number of such citations, the age at which the work
their audience perceives the world. was completed, and, in certain instances, its judged impor-
The foregoing discussion leads to the final major implication tance. In accordance with Ghiselin's (1963) comments, major
of this definition. Specifically, it is unlikely that creativity, in the contributions typically reflected new ideas or products applica-
sense defined above, represents a homogeneous psychological ble to a variety of significant problems, whereas minor contri-
attribute. Rather, creative behavior is likely to be determined butions were likely to reflect viable, albeit limited, extensions
by a complex interaction between the attributes of the individ- of known facts and principles.
INNOVATION 29
Application of this relatively straightforward technique also face a number of competing tasks, such as establishing a
yielded four important findings. First, Lehman (1953, 1954, family (Havinghurst, 1954), and even minor contributions of
1958, 1960, 1966) found that major contributions were most the type examined by Lehman (1953,1966) require substantial
likely to occur in young adulthood, whereas minor contribu- time investment, this hypothesis is open to question. It has also
tions and net productivity were most likely to peak in middle been suggested that the joint influence of increasing experience
age. Second, the curve for major contributions tended to fall off and decreasing enthusiasm might account for these age curves
sharply at the end of young adulthood, although the curve for (Simonton, 1984a). Unfortunately, Bray, Campbell, and
minor contributions was relatively flat, falling off only as indi- Grant's (1974) finding that middle-aged people display greater
viduals reached their middle 60s and even then falling off rather work involvement casts some doubt on the overall value of this
slowly. Third, the peak of these age curves tended to shift down- explanation, as do the motivational demands made by minor
ward in fields highly dependent on native ability and upward in contributions.
fields requiring substantial training and life experience. Fourth, According to the cumulative-advantage hypothesis, the indi-
the preceding observations appeared to be stable across at least vidual's experience, social connections, and knowledge of pro-
a limited range of cultural groups and historic periods. fessional expectations increase with age and experience and
Although these observations are generally recognized to have thereby increase the likelihood of professional recognition and
important implications for understanding creativity, it has not productivity (Cole, 1979). Although this explanation has value
been clear exactly how they should be interpreted. Attempts for understanding the frequency of minor contributions in mid-
have been made to attribute Lehman's (1953, 1966) findings dle age, it cannot explain the tendency of major contributions to
to the various biases inherent in archival research, such as the occur in young adulthood, when individuals are in the earliest
selective survival of either individuals or documents (Dennis, phases of their career (Roe, 1972).
1956,1958,1966). However, careful follow-up research by Leh- The declining creativity hypothesis suggests that the decreas-
man (1966) and Simonton (1984b), using appropriate statistical ing likelihood of major contributions in middle age is due to
controls, shows that, although there was some bias in Lehman's age-related decrements in divergent-thinking abilities. Al-
(1953) initial findings, it is not sufficient to change the basic though age-related decreases in divergent thinking have been
conclusions outlined above. observed (Alpaugh & Birren, 1977), they appear to be format
specific (Kogan, 1973; Vernon, 1971). Moreover, when creativ-
ity is evaluated in terms of the number of workable problem
Previous Explanations
solutions produced, an index of creativity highly relevant to oc-
If Lehman's (1953, 1966) findings cannot be attributed to cupational achievement, significant differences are not ob-
methodological artifacts, one must ask just what substantive served (Owens, 1969). Therefore, it appears that changes in di-
hypotheses might account for these findings. Over the years, five vergent-thinking abilities may not provide a fully adequate ex-
hypotheses have been proposed to account for the timing of ma- planation for Lehman's (1953, 1966) findings.
jor and minor contributions: (a) age decrements, (b) social com-
mitments, (c) declining creativity, (d) cumulative advantage,
An Alternative Explanation
and (e) experience/enthusiasm.
According to the age-decrements hypothesis, occupational The foregoing discussion suggests that although these five
investment following young adulthood is limited by physical hypotheses might account for certain findings obtained by Leh-
decrements and ill health (Lehman, 1953). Although this hy- man (1953, 1966), they do not provide an adequate explanation
pothesis may explain the decline in minor contributions occur- for the tendency of major contributions to occur in young adult-
ring around age 60, because minor contributions and net pro- hood and minor contributions to occur in middle age. Recently,
ductivity peak in middle age and because a strong correlation Mumford (1984) noted that a problem apparent in all these
is not found between physical demands and the timing of peak explanations may be found in the attempt to account for Leh-
achievement, its general utility is open to question. Simonton man's (1953, 1966) findings in terms of what one age group
(1983a) and Baldwin, Colangelo, and Dettman (1984) have pro- has that the other might lack. Consequently, by focusing on the
vided some support for this conclusion in arguing that the rele- unique developmental tasks facing individuals in young adult-
vant explanatory variable here is more likely to be psychological hood and middle age, it might be possible to construct a more
than physical age. Yet, even if physical decrements are assumed appropriate explanation.
to include declines in intellectual ability, it seems unlikely that Given the arguments presented earlier, it seems that some im-
these declines can account for the differences between young portant clues in this regard might be obtained from historical
adults and middle-aged people when one considers the slow de- studies of individuals who have produced major contributions.
cline of general intellectual ability beginning in later middle age Perhaps the most well-known investigation of this sort may be
(Schaie & Hertzog, 1986) and the substantial intellectual de- found in Kuhn's (1970) study of scientific revolutions. Follow-
mands made by even minor contributions of the sort described ing a careful examination of the conditions underlying a num-
by Lehman (1953, 1966). ber of scientific breakthroughs, Kuhn concluded that major
A number of authors have proposed a version of the social achievement in the sciences appears to be linked to a young
commitments hypothesis by suggesting that the declining fre- person's redefinition and reorganization of the concepts used
quency of major contributions in middle age might be attrib- in past attempts to understand some phenomenon based on an
uted to competing administrative and child-rearing responsibil- effort to incorporate certain anomalous findings that were not
ities (Adams, 1946; Taylor, 1963). Yet, because young adults readily understood within the existing paradigm. In a somewhat
more wide-ranging study, examining artists, writers, social sci- on the assumption that the production of new mechanical prod-
entists, and physical scientists, Koestler (1964) arrived at a sim- ucts is necessarily derived from a reorganization of an existing
ilar conclusion. Koestler's (1964) review of the conditions re- and finite supply of tools and concepts. After developing perfor-
lated to innovative achievement led him to argue that it is im- mance items intended to assess the individual's facility in rear-
possible to create something out of nothing; rather, major ranging these basic elements, Owens found that the resulting
achievements appeared to depend on the reorganization of ex- test scores were powerful predictors of real-world production
isting facts and understandings brought about by the sudden criteria. Somewhat less direct but nonetheless significant sup-
fusion of two or more schemata. Rothenberg (1976, 1979) has port for the foregoing proposition may be obtained by noting
also documented a variety of historic evidence suggesting that that it implies that both a search for and the use of multiple
major contributions may be related to the superimposition, or alternative categories will be related to creative production.
fusion, of images. Thus, MacKinnon's (1962) and Gough's (1976) observations
Taken as a whole, the foregoing studies provide a reasonably indicating that the use of moderately remote associations is re-
cohesive description of the conditions underlying the generation lated to creative achievement among architects, scientists, and
of major contributions. More specifically, they suggest that the engineers provide some confirmatory evidence in this regard.
integration and reorganization of distinct cognitive structures Further evidence along these lines may be found in Alissa's
in a manner that leads to new and more effective understandings (1972) work indicating that creativity is related to overinclu-
for addressing significant problems emerging in an occupa- sion, or the tendency to attend to information that is seemingly
tional field result in major contributions of the type described irrelevant to solution of the problem at hand. Studies conducted
by Lehman (1953, 1966). Of course, these historic studies do by Arlin (1977), Csikszentmihalyi and Beattie (1979), Getzels
not and perhaps cannot provide unambiguous evidence with and Csikzentmihalyi (1976), Glover (1979), and Kasperson
regard to the substantive import of this event. However, some- (1978) also provide evidence for the importance of category
what less ambiguous evidence in this regard may be found in search and problem definition in creative endeavors.
the broader literature. Although further research is required, this confluence of his-
Rothenberg (1986) and his colleagues, in studies of homospa- toric, experimental, and field research suggests that the individ-
tial thinking, have obtained experimental evidence providing ual's ability to integrate, reorganize, or restructure existing un-
some support for this proposition. Rothenberg (1986), Ro- derstandings may play an important role in generating major
thenberg and Sobel (1980), and Sobel and Rothenberg (1980) contributions or new schemata of use in solving a variety of
have defined homospatial thinking as deliberately and con- problems. If it is granted that this hypothesis is at least tenable,
sciously superimposing onto one another two or more images, then the question rises of just what factors might predispose
resulting in emergence of the new forms held to be critical inno- young adults to successfully engage in such integrative activi-
vation. Studies in which the role of homospatial thinking in cre- ties. Haan (1981) argued that young adulthood may be thought
ative production has been examined have involved obtaining of as a time of accommodation. Following Erikson's (1959) line
judgments of the creativity of literary or artistic products gener- of reasoning, she noted that young adults must complete a num-
ated under a control condition, in which two slides were dis- ber of developmental tasks of substantial importance to future
played side by side, and an experimental condition, in which well-being, including selecting and advancing a career, marry-
the same slides were superimposed on one another (Rothenberg ing, obtaining an adequate income, ensuring adequate housing,
& Sobel, 1980; Sobel & Rothenberg, 1980). Although con- and starting a family. To accomplish these tasks, young adults
strained by interrater reliabilities on the order of .40, a difficulty must be sensitive to objective information concerning the exter-
in the evaluation of artistic products that Rothenberg and col- nal environment and must be willing to align desires and capa-
leagues have discussed at some length, the results obtained in bilities with the potentialities and expectations apparent in their
these investigations support the notion that stimulus conditions environment (Haan, 198 l;Mumford, Wesley, & Shaffer, 1987),
leading to the merger of two or more categories facilitate the attending especially to the occupational environment, which
production of creative products even under conditions in which constitutes a major locus of task completion (Levenson, 1978;
gestalt effects have been controlled for (Rothenberg, 1986; Vaillant&McArthur, 1972).
Rothenberg & Sobel, 1980; Sobel & Rothenberg, 1980). In a The need to align desires and capabilities with the potentiali-
different set of investigations, examining the use of multiple ties and expectations associated with movement into the adult
cognitive categories defined on the basis of verbal protocols, social world requires young adults to restructure categories and
Barsalou (1982, 1983) has also obtained evidence indicating category interrelations on the basis of objective information
that cross-classification, or the use of information drawn from concerning their external environment (LaBouvie-Vief &
multiple categories, may be related to creative production. Chandler, 1978;Piaget, 1967). When this frequent integration
Some caution is required, however, in approaching these find- and reorganization of cognitions is based on accurate informa-
ings because of the lack of external criteria appraising the cre- tion that was not used or was not structured in a similar fashion
ative value of resultant products. in past attempts to address a problem situation, it may result
Support for the foregoing proposition is not limited to experi- in the creation of a unique and perhaps more effective under-
mental studies. A number of field studies have also provided standing. If this new understanding provides an effective solu-
evidence arguing for the validity of this proposition. The most tion to certain significant problems emerging in an occupa-
direct implementation of this theoretical perspective in an at- tional field, a major contribution may result. Thus, the need for
tempt to measure creative potential may be found in Owens's young adults to integrate and reorganize cognitive categories
(1969) study of mechanical ingenuity. Owens's effort was based with some frequency as part of their movement into the adult
INNOVATION 31
social arena may, in part, account for their unusual propensity quired for implementing this solution. Although these charac-
for major contributions. teristics are likely to facilitate minor contributions of the sort
The effectiveness of these integrative efforts with regard to described by Lehman (1953, 1966), it is also possible that these
occupational achievement is likely to be reinforced by at least well-developed cognitive structures may inhibit reintegration
three other characteristics of young adults and their lives. First, by virtue of their stability, prior use, and automaticity (Barsa-
because the occupational world constitutes a major locus of task lou, 1983).
completion, young adults are likely to focus information Evidence consistent with the foregoing hypotheses may be
search, integration of structures, and problem solving in this found in studies of creativity conducted by Taylor (1963), Ma-
area. When combined with their manifest commitment to and con (1987), and Owens (1969). Taylor (1963) used a divergent-
concern with occupational achievement (Vaillant & McArthur, thinking measure to appraise idea production. This measure
1972) as well as a somewhat unrealistic belief in themselves and was found to yield a correlation of .62 with supervisors' ratings
their abilities (Levenson, 1978), this focus should channel such of creative performance during the initial phases of research
integrative efforts along occupational avenues under conditions scientists' careers, but the correlation declined to .41 and. 17 in
in which individuals would be willing to pursue new under- progressively more advanced stages. These findings suggest that
standings. Second, the tendency of young adults to be con- idea generation may become less important to creative achieve-
cerned with effectiveness in the broader social world should re- ment as individuals begin to focus on and apply existing under-
sult in a search for objective information relevant to the solu- standings in middle age. Macon also obtained evidence indicat-
tion of occupational problems (Levenson, 1978; Mumford, ing that the antecedents of creative production are moderated
1984), thus facilitating integrative efforts that do in fact lead by age, such that idea generation is more important to younger
to problem solutions. Finally, early in an individual's career, scientists, whereas career identification is more important to
occupationally relevant categories are likely to include rela- older scientists. Finally, Owens noted that although young
tively few elements, because of limited experience, and so may adults produce a larger number of highly creative solutions to
be especially amenable to reintegration or restructuring with mechanical ingenuity problems, middle-aged people produce
the inclusion of new information (Schien, 1980). workable solutions at a higher rate than do young adults.
Although these forces facilitating integration among young The foregoing discussion has shown how the developmental
adults may explain their propensity for major contributions, tasks facing young adults and middle-aged people might ac-
they do not necessarily suggest why minor contributions and count for their propensities toward major and minor contribu-
net productivity would peak in middle age. Neugarten (1968) tions, but we have given little attention to Lehman's (1953,
and Gould (1978) have argued that it is in middle age that peo- 1966) remaining findings. In this regard, it should be noted that
ple are best able to handle a highly complex environment and the slower onset of the developmental tasks associated with
a well-differentiated self. Yet, along with these well-developed young adulthood in fields requiring substantial training and life
social and intellectual skills, middle age brings an awareness of experience may shift the relevant age curves upward. Further,
oncoming death and the knowledge that certain goals set forth the high stability of occupational structures across cultures
earlier in life may not be achieved (Levenson, 1978; Neugarten, (Deeg & Paterson, 1947; Hall & Jones, 1950), along with the
1968). This reevaluation leads middle-aged people to focus on fundamental nature of these influences, might account for the
control over the remaining portion of their lives within a frame- apparent stability of these findings across cultures and historic
work provided by more realistic and attainable objectives. This periods. The relatively flat shape of the curve for minor contri-
general outlook seems well suited to the tasks facing members butions may reflect the potential for some integrations of sche-
of this age group because they must fulfill positions of responsi- mata to result in minor contributions, as well as the capability
bility in the occupational world, provide an interface between of young adults to use existing structures in the pursuit of more
generations, and determine the course of their remaining years limited goals. Finally, the observed declines in the frequency
(Roadheaver & Datan, 1981). of major and minor contributions might be attributed to the
A variety of studies document the concern of middle-aged performance decrements brought about by retirement and old
people with realizable pragmatic achievement (Bray et al., age, along with consistency in the timing of major developmen-
1974; Levenson, 1978; Lowenthal et al., 1976; Vaillant, 1977). tal transitions among individuals having similar life experiences
When this emphasis on practical achievement within the frame- (Mumford, Wesley, & Shaffer, 1987).
work of more limited time and goals is considered from a career-
development perspective, it suggests a potential explanation for
Differential Processes
the tendency of minor achievements to peak in middle age.
More specifically, prior career development should have pro- Production Processes
vided these individuals with a firm grasp of a field's existing
understandings as well as with the ability to identify significant Of course, much of the preceding discussion was carried out
problems apparent within this framework (Chi, Feltovich, & on an aggregate level; therefore, it may not reflect the realities
Glaser, 1981; Zuckerman, 1974). These attributes, in conjunc- of a particular creator's productive efforts (Simonton, 1984b).
tion with the motivational dispositions of middle-aged people, Nevertheless, this discussion does suggest that the integration
their greater command of available tools, and well-developed and reorganization of cognitive structures might underlie major
tacit knowledge structures, should lead them to seek out prob- contributions, whereas the extension of existing structures to
lems that can be identified and solved within the extant para- significant but more limited problems might underlie minor
digm, simultaneously providing them with the resources re- contributions. Yet the effective application of these cognitive
strategies in generating innovative problem solutions is likely to definition of intelligence (Resnick, 1976), if it is granted that
depend on the effective application of an extensive set of knowl- general intelligence represents an individual's ability to formu-
edges, skills, and abilities. For instance, the effectiveness of an late and use abstract concepts (Humphreys, 1979; Tyler, 1965),
individual's integrative efforts might be influenced by a variety then its significance becomes apparent. More specifically, in ar-
of attributes, including individual differences in the capacity to eas in which the relevant understandings required for both ma-
(a) develop and use alternative understandings, (b) identify facts jor and minor contributions are difficult to grasp, intelligence
that are inconsistent with a given understanding, (c) apply mul- could be expected to condition the likelihood of major and mi-
tiple understandings in solving a problem, and (d) reorganize nor contributions. This observation finds substantial support in
elements within an understanding. Similarly, effective applica- the many studies reporting moderate positive relations between
tion of existing structures might vary with individual differ- indexes of intelligence and creative production among artists,
ences in (a) the richness or comprehensiveness of the relevant scientists, and professionals (Cattell, 1971; Gough, 1976; Hel-
understandings, (b) the capacity to identify relevant under- son & Crutchfield, 1970) but weak or insignificant relations in
standings, (c) the identification of problems that can and cannot lower level occupations (Friedricksen & Ward, 1978; Hocevar,
be addressed within a given understanding, and (d) the identifi- 1980; Kogan & Pankove, 1974). Further, to the extent that all
cation of problems implied by a certain understanding. areas of endeavor require the development and application of at
Although the foregoing attributes represent purely hypothet- least some abstract understandings, it can be expected that a
ical constructs capable of determining individuals' potential for certain degree of intelligence would set a minimal precondition
major and minor contributions, the extant literature does pro- for creativity as it is reflected in major and minor contributions.
vide support for the relevance of at least some of these attri- Therefore, it is not surprising that at least some evidence has
butes. For instance, a number of studies underscore the import been obtained for Guilford's (1967) triangularity hypothesis
of problem-finding activities in a variety of creative efforts (Ar- (Guilford & Christensen, 1973; Schubert, 1973), according to
lin, 1977; Getzels & Csikzentmihalyi, 1976; Glover, 1979; which creativity and intelligence are most highly correlated in
Kasperson, 1978). Recently, Dillion (1982) argued that prob- the lower two thirds of the population.
lem finding represents a multifaceted construct involving three Historically, studies of individual differences in the capacity
progressively more complex activities: identifying an obvious for idea generation have focused on Guilford's (1950) divergent-
problem (Level 1), discovering a problem through data investi- thinking construct. As originally defined, divergent thinking re-
gation (Level 2), and inventing a problem through rearrange- fers to an individual's ability to generate multiple potential solu-
ment of its central elements (Level 3). In the present scheme, tions to a problem. Divergent-thinking ability is typically mea-
Level 1 and Level 2 activities—involving the application of ex- sured by presenting individuals with an open-ended stimulus
isting structures—appear to facilitate minor contributions, problem to which they are required to generate as many solu-
whereas Level 3—provided that it involves multiple and hith- tions as possible. The individual's performance may then be
erto uncombined structures—might contribute to major con- evaluated with respect to frequency or number of solutions pro-
tributions. Of course, the ability to identify a problem does not duced, flexibility as evidenced by the number of shifts in re-
ensure that the individual possesses the capacity to solve it. sponse categories, or originality as evidenced in the uniqueness
Thus, one might expect that a variety of other attributes will of the proposed solutions. However, because of certain ambigu-
condition the individual's capacity for both major and minor ities in the relevant scoring procedures, most investigations
contributions. have relied on frequency measures (Kogan, 1973), and such
One implication of this statement is that knowledge and com- measures have been found to yield moderate positive relations
prehension of a given problem area are likely to represent pre- with indexes of creative achievement (Horn, 1976; Richards,
requisites for creative activity and idea generation. As such, it 1976).
is not surprising that work by Simonton (1984b), Snow (1986), Whereas the multivariate nature of creative production sug-
Bradshaw, Langley, and Simon (1983), and Langley, Simon, gests an obvious explanation for the strength of these validity
Bradshaw, and Zytkow (1986) underscores the importance of coefficients, the literature delineates a number of other prob-
knowledge of a subject-matter area in determining the likeli- lems associated with the rote application of divergent-thinking
hood of innovative achievement. Although substantially greater measures. For instance, performance on such measures is in-
attention should be given to defining the role of acquired exper- fluenced by instructional set (Evans & Forbach, 1983; Lissitz &
tise in determining the likelihood of both major and minor cre- Willhoft, 1985; Owen & Baum, 1985), a finding that led Owen
ative contributions across occupational fields, the theory out- and Baum to conclude that divergent thinking may be a situa-
lined above leads to the expectation that knowledge and experi- tionally contingent construct rather than an enduring trait.
ence would be directly related to minor contributions, while Other investigators have noted that scores on divergent-think-
yielding a curvilinear relation with the likelihood of major con- ing measures may be unduly influenced by test anxiety, re-
tributions due to the channeling and cuing effects brought sponse sets, and the limited reliability of scoring procedures
about by high levels of expertise. (Romaniuk & Romaniuk, 1981). Finally, in actual creative pro-
The second major implication of this perspective concerns duction, individuals are confronted with a problem to solve,
the role of intelligence in idea generation. For some time, a vari- not with a solution (e.g., "brick") to which they must attach
ety of evidence indicating that intelligence measures yield mod- a problem (e.g., "uses"; Owen & Baum, 1985). Consequently,
erate positive relations with indexes of innovative achievement current divergent-thinking tests may not fully capture the in-
has been available (Cattell, 1971; Cox, 1926; Terman & Oden tended construct (Owen & Baum, 1985), nor should they be
1959). Although many ambiguities exist with respect to the relied on to the exclusion of other crucial cognitive abilities,
INNOVATION 33
such as convergent thinking and evaluation (Bailin, 1984; Pearl- fending solutions mediated by another process. In reply, Poze
man, 1983;Sternberg, 1982). (1983) argued that to evaluate an analogy or association, one
Nevertheless, some form of divergent thinking may still must concentrate on the connection between the subject and
represent a key cognitive component underlying creative pro- the analogue and on the context within which it was forged,
duction. Runco and Albert (1985) discovered that the frequen- while noting that such connections are likely to be essential only
cy-controlled originality scores of intellectually gifted middle- in solving problems requiring information that cannot be
school children were substantially more reliable and conver- gleaned from an analysis of the problem's own elements (Poze,
gently valid than alternative measures. Also concentrating on 1983).
the quality or originality of responses, Harrington, Block, and Given the strategic approaches underlying major and minor
Block (1983) found that high-quality divergent-thinking scores contributions, both positions are tenable. Perkins (1983) sug-
in 4- and 5-year-olds correlated .45 with construct-valid teacher gested that remote analogies rarely mediate creative production
evaluations of creativity 6 and 7 years later and accounted for because they may distract from the real constraints of a prob-
14% of the variance in teacher judgments beyond that attribut- lem and because truly powerful ones are difficult to engender,
able to sex, conventional intelligence measures, and simple fre- given that separate domains tend to be more different than sim-
quency scores (Harrington et al., 1983). These results suggest ilar at any but a superficial level. When such analogies do occur,
that although frequency, originality, and flexibility scores are however, they may well connote the integration of cognitions
not independent (Lissitz & Willhoft, 1985), they may not be presaging a major contribution, as exemplified by Kekule's us-
fully interchangeable (Harrington et al., 1983). ing the analogy of a snake's swallowing its tail to envision the
Certainly, an individual's ability to generate multiple, high- ring structure of the benzene molecule (Poze, 1983). Poze's less
quality solutions to a problem might provide a substantive basis stringent requirement that the connection must be new only
for integration and thereby enhance the likelihood of major to the individual, regardless of the category closeness between
contributions. In addition, it might be argued that such tests subject and analogue, may be more characteristic of the limited
reflect the individual's ability to use multiple understandings or problem-solving efforts associated with minor contributions.
concepts in addressing problems and, therefore, might repre- The foregoing discussion leads to the issue of imagery and
sent a process fundamental to integration. Although it is possi- metaphorical abilities in the production of major and minor
ble that the generation of alternative solutions also provides a contributions. Over the past decade, researchers have evidenced
substantive base for minor contributions (Einhorn & Hogarth, substantially more interest in the ability of creative individuals
1981; Hogarth, 1980), minor contributions may not always re- to use images and metaphors as a basis for solving complex
quire divergent thinking if the available understandings, or sche- problems (Harrington, 1981; Kogan, Connor, Gross, & Fava,
mata, provide an adequate framework for solving the problem 1980). Although clear-cut evidence bearing on the predictive
at hand (Cronbach, 1968). Therefore, as suggested earlier, the significance of these abilities is lacking, they do seem to have
efficacy of these cognitive abilities in predicting creative behav- some relevance to idea generation in the sense that they provide
ior may vary with the cognitive strategy in use and career age, alternative ways for attaining or applying understandings.
thus providing an explanation for the findings of Taylor (1963), Ainsworth-Land (1982), for instance, suggested four orders
Macon (1987), and Owens (1969). or stages of imaging, the boundaries of which are flexible and
through which one may move back and forth with respect to a
Associational Processes single problem. From Stage 1, involving spontaneous, sensory-
based imaging leading to concrete creative products, the pro-
Along with divergent-thinking abilities, associational abilities cess moves to Stage 2's analogical, goal-directed, controlled
have also been considered of some import in understanding the imagery. In Stage 3, images are metaphorical, symbolic, super-
creative act and have produced moderate positive relations with imposed, and both controlled and spontaneous, facilitating the
indexes of creative achievement (Mednick & Mednick, 1967; integration of old and new conceptual domains (Ainsworth-
Mendelsohn, 1976; Sobel, 1978). It seems likely, however, that Land, 1982). Ainsworth-Land's Stage 4, which incorporates
analogical or associational abilities will prove useful in idea gen- mystical visions, the creation of a new world order through dis-
eration only to the extent that they provide information rele- integration, and relinquishing ego control, is beyond the scope
vant to solution of the problem at hand. Therefore, it is not of the present perspective. Nevertheless, the requirements for
surprising that both MacKinnon (1962) and Gough (1976) have minor contributions are not inconsistent with the concrete and
found that the use of moderately rather than highly remote as- goal-directed imagery described in Stages 1 and 2, just as the
sociations is related to creative achievement in professional oc- less bounded imagery in Stage 3 is consistent with the integra-
cupations. tion and reorganization of understandings held to characterize
Unfortunately, the definition of what constitutes a more or major creative efforts.
less remote association as well as the significance of such associ-
ations has caused concern. Perkins (1983) contended that an Unconscious Processes
association is remote only if it comes from a domain different
from that of the problem at hand. Further, analysis of both ex- In recent years, access to more primitive modes of thought
perimental and archival data led Perkins to conclude that re- has also been held to play an important role in the creative pro-
mote associations or analogies rarely mediate discovery and cess (Arieti, 1976;Barron, 1972; Schaefer, 1972; Suler, 1980).
that even close analogies are not commonly used, at least Essentially, this research holds that creativity represents the
overtly. Instead, they serve as a vehicle for explaining and de- adaptive use of the unconscious by permitting unconscious
ideas and associations to flow into consciousness, thereby pro- be capable of either formulating or implementing these ideas is
viding a basis for integration and redirection of thought. Strong open to question. Many reasons exist for an individual's failure
evidence bearing on the predictive power of scales measuring to develop ideas or to translate ideas into action, but one of the
primary-process use is not available (Suler, 1980). Nevertheless, more important influences appears to be the individual's
effective use of unconscious, repressed materials might provide unique personality. Over the years, a number of studies examin-
more diverse and complex information for the redefinition and ing the personality attributes related to innovative achievement
reorganization of conscious understandings and so contribute in various occupational fields have been conducted. Studies ex-
to idea generation. Kaha (1983), for example, posited that a amining the personality characteristics related to creative
creator uses primary processes, which are unconscious or pre- achievement have been conducted in the sciences (Albaum,
conscious, in such a way that the material itself becomes con- 1976; Albaum & Baker, 1977; Chambers, 1964; Gough, 1979;
scious, whereas the manner in which it has reached awareness Owens, 1969; Roe, 1953), engineering (MacKinnon, 1962;
remains hidden. Although the secondary processes of rational Morrison, Owens, Glennon, & Albright, 1962), architecture
thought and the primary processes that are unbounded by logic (Gough, 1976; Hall & MacKinnon, 1969), and art (Barren,
do not recognize one another, the mind operates synchronisti- 1972;Gotz&Gotz, 1979).
cally at both levels to create a new conscious perspective by Early investigations into the personality characteristics re-
merging both processes. It is this new perspective that the con- lated to creative achievement in various occupational fields
scious mind then labels insight or intuition (Kaha, 1983). (MacKinnon, 1962; Roe, 1953) indicated at least some differ-
Some evidence for the melding of primary and secondary ences in the attributes relevant to innovation. This finding is
processes may be found in recent empirical research concern- understandable because the requirements for effective problem
ing the relation between dreams and creativity. In a study of solving vary with the tasks at hand (Fleishman, 1975; Guion,
high school students nominated as creative by their teachers, 1965). In recent years, it has become apparent, however, that
Domino (1982) found that the creative students were more certain core characteristics are consistently related to creative
likely than others to view dreams as commonplace and believe accomplishments across fields. In a comprehensive review of
in their psychological significance. In subsequent work with the relevant literature, Barren and Harrington (1981) con-
professional architects, writers, musicians, sculptors, and re- cluded that the set of personality characteristics related to cre-
search scientists, all nominated by peers as creative, Sladeczek ative achievement across fields includes intellectual and artistic
and Domino (1985) compared dream-content protocols ob- values, breadth of interests, attraction to complexity, high en-
tained from these individuals in presumably creative profes- ergy, a concern with work and achievement, independence of
sions with those gathered from a control group of police officers judgment, autonomy, intuition, self-confidence, ability to toler-
and accountants. The dreams of the professionals engaged in ate and resolve conflict, and a creative self-image, though the
creative endeavors were significantly more regressive (implausi- last may, in some instances, be confounded with rejection of
ble and unrealistic), distorted (unlike waking experience), and convention (Ridley, 1979). Weiss (1981) also found empathy
visual than were the dreams of incumbents in less creative occu- and the capacity for status to be positively related to creativity
pations (Sladeczek & Domino, 1985). Sladeczek and Domino's in architects, mathematicians, and research scientists, whereas
argument, which was similar to Kaha's (1983), was that the pri- sociability, communality, and the desire to make a good impres-
mary process exemplified by dreaming is a crucial aspect of sion were negatively related.
creative thinking because it facilitates restructuring one's wak- One potential explanation for the consistent emergence of
ing world and synthesizing disparate elements. If such is the these core characteristics is that in some manner, they facilitate
case, dreaming and other unconscious processes may well be the creation of new understandings through the integration and
associated with the major creative contributions when the re- reorganization of knowledge structures or facilitate the develop-
structuring and synthesis involves multiple domains or under- ment of more comprehensive understandings. In both cases,
standings and with the minor contributions when the new per- these second-order cognitive outcomes should facilitate major
spective applies to elements within a given understanding. and minor contributions in almost any field of endeavor. In the
It might be wise at this point, however, to consider Guilford's case of broad interests, intellectual and artistic values, a prefer-
(1982) caution that to invoke, in the scientific study of creativ- ence for complexity, and a tolerance for ambiguity, this conclu-
ity, processes and concepts that are not easily communicable or sion does indeed appear true. Attributes of this sort tend to in-
operationally definable is to abandon the belief that all human crease the probability that the individual will (a) have multiple
behavior is rational and that it is psychology's task "to discover understandings available, (b) be willing to use multiple under-
the nature of that rationality" (p. 151). Considering psycholo- standings in problem-solving efforts, (c) be sensitive to informa-
gy's abiding concern with processes that are not fully conscious, tion that is inconsistent with a given understanding, and (d) be
however, perhaps we may suggest that whereas human behavior willing to resolve conflicting facts or understandings. Thus,
is lawful, in the sense that dreams, images, and spontaneous differential characteristics of this sort might be conceived of as
metaphors derive from a human process that can perhaps be attributes contributing to development and use of complex
better elucidated, it is not always cognitively rational or logical. schemata.
The second potential explanation for the emergence of these
core characteristics derives from the fact that identifying a
Differential Attributes
problem solution is not synonymous with creative achieve-
Even if one assumes that individuals possess all those abilities ment. At some point, a new understanding or a potential solu-
relevant to idea generation in a certain field, whether they will tion to a problem must be translated into action. In translating
INNOVATION 35
any idea into action, the individual must be capable of making a 1 and Level 2 learning, composed of convergent thinking and
public commitment to a new idea and of subsequently foregoing complex thinking, respectively. Level 3 learning, the involve-
other activities to ensure that this idea will become a viable ment in challenging tasks that require self-direction, resource
product (Motamedi, 1982). Moreover, because by definition management, product design, and professional practice, re-
this idea will be new and untried, the individual will often lack ceived far less attention (Treffinger et al., 1983). Even training
strong social approval for the value of this endeavor. Under these programs developed specifically to enhance creativity may not
conditions, it is not surprising that autonomy, independence, adequately compensate for the lack of an intellectually enriched
self-confidence, high energy, and a willingness to work would be and supportive early environment; Rose and Lin's (1984) meta-
found to be related to creative accomplishment across occupa- analysis of long-term creativity programs, using Glass's (1978)
tional fields. As a result, this second set of core characteristics magnitude of effect statistic, found that, overall, training ac-
might be conceived of as general personality attributes required counted for no more than 22% of the variance in creative be-
for implementing both major and minor contributions within havior.
the broader context of the creator's personal and social world. A second set of early influences consistently related to cre-
ative achievement is that pertaining to the development of inde-

pendence or autonomy. For example, Stein (1968) and Datta

Developmental Considerations
(1967) have reported that creative scientists were subject to less
Early Influences discipline and were raised in a less structured environment than
were noncreative scientists. Further, Getzels and Jackson (1962)
It has long been recognized that differential characteristics and Hudson (1968) have found that the parents of individuals
develop over time as a result of the individual's interaction with obtaining high scores on divergent-thinking tests tend to be less
a particular sequence of environmental influences (Howe, vigilant and controlling of their children's behavior while en-
1982; Mumford & Owens, 1984). Therefore, a variety of situa- couraging independence and personal expression. Kennett
tional influences might be expected to contribute to develop- (1978, 1984) has added that this especially nutrient ground for
ment of the core characteristics and differential processes facili- fostering the guided independence associated with later creativ-
tating the production of major and minor contributions. Over ity is particularly evident in large families from the upper socio-
the years, a variety of studies have been conducted to examine economic stratum. Interestingly enough, however, high imagi-
the developmental influences related to creative achievement in nativeness in play has also been found to be related to pre-
various occupational fields. A variety of cross-field differences schoolers' membership in a middle-income, single-parent
have appeared in these investigations (Roe, 1951, 1953), but family, suggesting that when economic deprivation is not a
certain consistencies have also emerged. problem, the increased independence of single-parent children
Perhaps the most clear-cut finding obtained in these studies is may not be detrimental to creative development (Cornelius &
that individuals who make creative contributions tend to come Yawkey, 1985). Despite the support provided by these studies
from homes in which a favorable background for the develop- for the general importance of developmental influences foster-
ment of intellectual abilities is provided and intellectual values ing autonomy, Rejskind (1982) provided a compelling argu-
are instilled. For instance, studies by Roe (1951, 1953), Mac- ment indicating that the relation between children's creativity
Curdy (1956), MacKinnon (1962), Schaefer (1969), and Eidu- and independence from parents and teachers is curvilinear, with
son (1962) indicate that a family environment fostering intel- the optimal degree of freedom depending on the task and the
lectual values and providing intellectual stimulation may con- type of creativity required.
tribute to later creative achievement. In a related vein, Albert Early experiences capable of facilitating intelligence, intellec-
(1980) argued that the tendency of creative achievers to be tual values, and independence are consistently emphasized in
firstborns may be attributed to the richer stimulus environment the literature, but other trends also come to the fore. For exam-
provided by enhanced parental contact and the impact of this ple, Roe (1953) reported evidence indicating that life-history
enriched environment on intellectual development. Although experiences that support the Protestant work ethic appear to
Clark and Rice's (1982) study of Nobel laureates provides some be associated with later creative accomplishment. In a related
support for this position, it also suggests that the impact of this demographic study of Nobel laureates, Berry (1981) found that
effect has declined with increasing educational opportunities in Protestant and Jewish communities in the United States con-
later cohorts. When one considers the fundamental role that tributed a disproportionate number of eminent scientists. Ac-
intelligence and intellectual values play in the development of cording to Berry, these data point to the importance of the reli-
cognitive structures, it is not especially surprising that these gious core values shared by Protestantism and Judaism, includ-
early developmental influences would be found to be of substan- ing an emphasis on the inherent value of knowledge and
tial importance to later creative contributions. personal achievement, as well as the precedence of seculariza-
However, the educational system, even at the graduate level, tion, over belief in religious observance per se.
may not fully substitute for this early environment: Simonton Berry's (1981) data also demonstrate that although over 30%
(1983b) reported a curvilinear relation between scientific emi- of the literature laureates' childhood experiences involved the
nence and formal education, with a point that represented loss of a parent or a severe economic crisis within the family, a
more than a bachelor's degree but less than a master's constitut- finding consistent with Roe's (1953) analysis, science winners
ing the optimal level. Treffinger, Isaksen, and Firestein (1983) rarely experienced such emotional upheaval. Perhaps, then, the
underscored a similar point in their argument that the educa- consistency of an intellectually stimulating environment, chan-
tional system tends to concentrate on what they termed Level neling curiosity and intellectual exploration along occupation-
ally appropriate avenues (Eiduson, 1962) is also an important tially at the age of 7 or 8 with the imposition of schooling de-
component in the development of creativity. This trend is again mands. As cognitive skills develop to meet these combined de-
apparent in the Getzels and Jackson (1962) study in which par- mands, creativity reemerges, in spite of increased anxiety, and
ents of individuals obtaining high scores on a divergent-think- peaks at age 10 or 11, then beginning a decline associated with
ing test tended to emphasize openness to experience and to sup- the onset of puberty (Smith & Carlsson, 1985). While the recov-
port a certain degree of role taking. Finally, evidence may be ery of creativity is slow from ages 14 to 15, due to the confor-
found in Getzels and Jackson's (1962) and Trollinger's (1979) mity pressures induced by peer groups, compulsiveness recedes
studies indicating that a family environment encouraging cre- during this period (Smith & Carlsson, 1985). With a decline
ative activity and inculcating a firm sense of the self as a creative in the compulsiveness that otherwise might continue to inhibit
entity may play an important role in the development of creative creative expression, along with the enhanced cognitive abilities
individuals. that have developed throughout the years, creative behavior in-
For the most part, the preceding discussion was focused on creases markedly at about age 16 (Smith & Carlsson, 1985).
early developmental influences. Although this focus reflects the
trends apparent in the broader literature, it should be recog-

Later Influences
nized that individual development does not cease at 15 years of
age; rather, it is an ongoing process continuing into adolescence Given the value of a life-span approach to creativity implied
and adulthood (Baldwin et al., 1984; Jaquish & Ripple, 1981; by the foregoing discussion, we believe that evidence pertaining
Lesner & Hillman, 1983; Romaniuk & Romaniuk, 1981; to later influences on the development of creative capacity is
Schaie & Hertzog, 1986; Taylor & Sacks, 1981). Some evidence also germane. Regarding the importance of an intellectually
for the continuing nature of creativity development was pro- nurturing environment, Levenson (1978) found that the avail-
vided by Trollinger (1983), who found that although highly cre- ability of mentors during the early phase of career development
ative female musicians were more likely to choose solitary hob- is related to creative achievement in a variety of occupational
bies and to engage in individualistic creative activities than were fields. Zuckerman's (1974) study of Nobel laureates casts some
their less creative counterparts, these differences manifested light on the mentoring process. Broadly speaking, her findings
themselves gradually, appearing as significant effects only years indicate that highly creative individuals actively seek out and
after their initial appearance during early adolescence and are selected by other highly creative individuals for further oc-
childhood. cupational training. As part of this process, novices internalize
Some research even questions the extent to which the behav- exacting professional standards, along with a sense of excel-
ior of individuals can properly be labeled creative before adoles- lence, achievement, and self-confidence with regard to occupa-
cence. In his theory of cognitive development, Piaget (1972) tional pursuits. Additionally, they appear to develop a better
posited that the formal-thought processes, emerging in adoles- than average grasp of the significant problems emerging in a
cence, are characterized by an ability to form hypotheses re- field, as well as knowledge of and concern with the basic under-
garding objects and events that exist within the realm of possi- standings that might be used in solving these problems.
bility but are not part of current reality. Although this ability In a related study, Torrance (1983) described the mentor as
to hypothesize alternative possibilities seems to be tied to both one who is a recognized influence in a given occupational
the generation and application of understandings (Wolf & Lar- sphere and provides the novice with continued support and en-
son, 1981), Ross (1973, 1976) has noted that whereas formal couragement during the period of idea generation. Using avail-
thinking increases from early to middle adolescence, creative able longitudinal data, Torrance (1983) found significant corre-
performance on divergent-thinking tests declines, because of lations, for both men and women, between experiencing a men-
peer identification and increased stress. Wolf and Larson, how- toring relationship and the number of recognized creative
ever, suggested that the early creativity supposedly exhibited by contributions made, although what men sought in a mentor—
children may be an artifact. They argued that preadolescent encouragement and prodding—differed somewhat from the
children do not efficiently incorporate facts and tend to be in- need for encouragement and praise expressed by women (Tor-
transigent in their views even when presented with contradic- rance, 1983). These more recent observations concerning men-
tory evidence. Hence, adults' judgments of children's diver- toring are in line with the earlier findings of Knapp (1963) and
gent-thinking responses may be based on omissions in their Knapp and Greenbaum (1952) concerning the kinds of teachers
responses, not on the elements actually considered (Wolf & Lar- and schools likely to produce creative scientists, as well as Bray
son, 1981). et al.'s (1974) findings indicating that individuals who are ini-
Smith and Carlsson's (1983, 1985) investigations of Swedish tially exposed to a challenging work environment display better
youth provide a useful extension of Wolf and Larson's (1981) long-term performance. However, Simonton's (1984a) investi-
arguments. Denning creativity as the ability to transcend the gation of the social relationships of 722 eminent artists born
boundaries of a stimulus context (Smith & Carlsson, 1985), between 1042 and 1912 indicated that the nonpersonal, para-
Smith and Carlsson (1983) argued that ordinary 4- or 5-year- gon-emulator relationship was more crucial to artistic success
olds cannot be creative because they are unable to differentiate than was the mentoring relationship between master and ap-
outer stimuli from the internal experience of the stimuli. There- prentice typical of the sciences.
fore, young children are incapable of the dual, inward-outward Nevertheless, these studies of both childhood and adult devel-
focus that is the hallmark of creative endeavor. Using this opmental influences seem consistent with the general perspec-
framework, Smith and Carlsson (1985) demonstrated that cre- tive presented earlier. Specifically, early experiences likely to en-
ativity begins around 5 or 6 years of age and decreases substan- courage the emergence of the core characteristics related to the
INNOVATION 37
development and implementation of new ideas, such as inde- divergent-thinking measures, whereas Harrington (1981)
pendence or an emphasis on personal achievement, are likely to showed that instructions to be creative also increase scores on
be associated with creative accomplishment across occupa- these measures.
tional fields. Further, those experiences that influence develop- On the other hand, Amabile (1983) argued that extrinsic mo-
ment of the cognitive processes underlying effective construc- tivators may limit exploration, set breaking, and risk taking. In
tion and application of understandings also appear to be rele- studies of children and adults, Amabile, Hennessey, and Gross-
vant, as in the case of influences that facilitate intellectual man (1986) found that predefined reward contracts resulted in
development. However, as indicated by Simonton's (1984a) decreased creativity, whereas unexpected performance rewards
mentoring findings, these developmental effects may be moder- did not effect creativity. Thus, it appears that simply providing
ated by certain field-specific influences. rewards may not be fully sufficient for defining a creative cli-
mate. Some further support for the importance of exploration
and risk taking has been provided by Torrance (1965, 1972),
Cultural Influences
who has found that a nonpunitive classroom environment that
As part of their development, individuals are exposed to a focuses on the development and evaluation of understandings
variety of circumstances that constitute the broader culture to while nurturing independent thought and exploration tends to
which they belong, and these experiences may also influence enhance idea generation. Through studies of collegiate environ-
the development of creative potential. For instance, Simonton ments contributing to scientific productivity, Thistlewaite
(1984b) found that formal education in a society is a spur to (1963) and Knapp (1963) have obtained collaborative evidence
intellectual development and is related to creative achievement in their findings that a warm, supportive, and flexible but intel-
until education begins to force an adherence to traditional per- lectually demanding environment seems related to scientific
spectives. Creative role models, on the other hand, continue to productivity.
facilitate creative development as long as these role models en- Studies of organizational climate and productivity by Taylor
courage an open, questioning approach to new ideas. In a sepa- (1963, 1972) and Andrews (1975) indicate that an organiza-
rate investigation, Simonton (1975) found that such social con- tional climate that provides physical support for creative efforts
ditions as political fragmentation, perhaps encouraging a toler- and encourages independent action tends to facilitate scientific
ance for ambiguity and diverse intellectual exposure, facilitate productivity. In another study of scientists, Pelz (1956) found
the emergence of creative individuals, although war and politi- that climates encouraging interaction, individual autonomy,
cal instability, perhaps limiting feelings of self-efficacy, inhibit and production of knowledge generated creative achievement,
later innovation. whereas climates characterized by distrust, lack of communica-
Berry's (1981) finding that science laureates tend to emerge tion, limited individual autonomy, and ambiguous goals inhib-
from stable, upwardly mobile, academic, or technical back- ited scientific innovation.
grounds prompted Silver's (1983) comments concerning the Although these climate variables do not fully determine cre-
cultural conditions relevant to scientific innovation. Silver ativity, studies by Ellison, James, McDonald, Fox, and Taylor
(1983) contended that within the current cultural context, risk (1968) and Ellison, James, and Carron (1970) show that indi-
is the hallmark of the scientific environment. If risk is regarded viduals' perceptions of environmental support, trust, commu-
as the ability to define the probability of success and the price nication, freedom, and goal clarity may yield multiple corre-
of failure, then an upwardly mobile family in which risks have lations on the order of .50 for the prediction of scientific
constantly been assessed provides relatively easy transition into achievement. Taken as a whole, these studies suggest that a cli-
the social context of modern science (Silver, 1983). Again, these mate that facilitates innovation is one that provides a cognitive
findings and those of Simonton (1975, 1984b) indicate the im- basis for idea generation and encourages the actions required
port of cultural influences that contribute to the development for implementing these ideas while it demonstrates acceptance
and application of understandings in a manner consistent with and recognition for the individual's creative efforts. Thus, it is
a field's problem-solving demands. not surprising that in studies of work climate in research and
development organizations, Abbey and Dickson (1983) and
Lind and Mumford (1987) have found that innovative research-
Environmental Considerations
and-design systems are characterized by the recognition and re-
Climatic Conditions ward of superior performance, particularly with respect to the
initial exploratory stages of creative endeavors in which the in-
Even when individuals have developed the capacity for inno- dividual's need for acceptance and support plays an important
vation, their willingness to undertake productive efforts may be role in motivating further efforts.
conditioned by beliefs concerning the consequences of such ac-
tions in a given environment (Berlyne, I960; Derenberg & Bell,
Evaluative Conditions
1960). In a number of educational and industrial studies, re-
searchers have attempted to identify the climatic conditions This issue of recognition and acceptance has also received
that facilitate creative endeavors. On a rather prosaic level, they some attention as it relates to the evaluation of creators' efforts.
have shown that environments providing rewards for or explic- Perhaps the most obvious precondition for recognition and ac-
itly stating the need for creativity engender higher levels of cre- ceptance of new understandings or potential problem solutions
ative activity. For example, Torrance (1965) showed that the is that they must be communicated to potential users. In fact,
availability of monetary incentives enhances performance on studies by Darley (1978) and Pelz (1983) suggest that effective
use of appropriate communication channels constitutes an im- cients above .30 are to be obtained. Not only will such efforts
portant determinant of dissemination and recognition. The enhance prediction, by virtue of their ability to examine the
work of Bandura (1986) and Rodgers and Adhikarya (1979) in- simultaneous interactive influences of variables drawn from
dicates that acceptance of new understandings or problem solu- multiple domains, but they may also provide a more sophisti-
tions is most likely to occur if the communication is tailored to cated understanding of the phenomenon.
the existing beliefs, cognitions, and needs of the targeted group. However, in determining creative potential, it also seems de-
The effectiveness of this communication is further enhanced if sirable to consider certain conceptual issues brought to light in
target groups contain individuals who are themselves likely to the course of this review. First, because the nature of creative
be successful communicators of the innovation (Granovetter, processes may differ markedly, depending on whether creative
1983; Rodgers &Kincaid, 1981). production involves the generation of new understandings or
Of course, not all the new understandings or potential prob- the application of existing understandings, it seems necessary
lem solutions communicated to society are adopted. As Zalt- to carefully distinguish the level at which creativity is being de-
man and Wallendorf (1979) pointed out, not all innovations are fined. Second, both kinds of creative production are likely to
useful when looked at from the broader perspective of ongoing depend on a variety of field-specific knowledge structures and
patterns of social interchange. Tornatzky and Klein (1982) and understandings. Hence, a fully adequate description of creative
Rodgers and Shoemaker (1971) have summarized a variety of potential seems to require greater attention to the competencies
evidence that indicates that the acceptance of an innovation is that the individual has or is capable of developing in a specific
determined by (a) the relative costs and benefits associated with occupational field. Third, it appears that future attempts to un-
its application, (b) its compatibility with the existing sociotech- derstand and predict creative potential should carefully con-
nical system, and (c) its complexity. Typically, innovations that sider the importance of cognition, information, and informa-
are easily understood within existing frameworks, provide large tion processing to creative endeavors (Barron & Harrington,
benefits relatively rapidly in relation to their cost, can be sup- 1981), although in addressing these issues one should recognize
ported within current resource constraints, and do not disrupt that there is no one absolute creative process but, rather, a set
vested social interests are most rapidly accepted (Bandura, of creative processes differentially related to alternative types of
1986; Downs & Mohr, 1979; Havens & Flinn, 1975; Roling, creative endeavors.
Ashcroft, & Chege, 1976). Another concern commonly found in creativity studies is the
Aside from these rather pragmatic considerations, it has been construction of environments capable of facilitating innovative
suggested that evaluation is influenced by the Zeitgeist, defined achievement. In this regard, innovation appears likely to be en-
as the spirit of the times or a common intellectual arena (Feld- gendered by an environment capable of providing creators with
man, 1982). Gruber (1983) noted, however, that whereas com- personally meaningful rewards for their efforts while it ensures
mon intellectual frameworks may play a role in evaluation of that individuals possess the requisite tools for attaining these
creative products, the Zeitgeist represents only one of a number rewards. Innovative achievement might also be facilitated by an
of potential evaluative and predictive considerations. Simon- environment that provides a cognitive basis for creative efforts
ton's (1979) investigation of multiple discoveries and inven- through structures encouraging the creation of systematic un-
tions underscores this perspective. In analyzing whether, derstandings and ongoing exploration of alternative points of
throughout history, multiple discoveries of the same principle view. Finally, an environment providing a framework for action
by different individuals are best explained by chance, Zeitgeist, consistent with the core characteristics associated with creative
or the genius that transcends the Zeitgeist, Simonton (1979) con- undertakings, such as independence or self-confidence, seems
cluded that all three explanations have merit. A small group of likely to contribute to innovative achievement. Thus, organiza-
highly gifted and prolific contributors who are both lucky and tional and educational systems that support autonomy or build
consummately attuned to their fields is most likely to be in- self-esteem might increase the likelihood of innovative achieve-
volved in multiple creations per se, including rediscoveries and ment.
reinventions (Simonton, 1979). With regard to climatic considerations, however, somewhat
different contingencies might be called for, depending on the
style of creativity that one wishes to encourage. For instance,
Conclusions
when minor contributions are of concern, a climate character-
These comments concerning the Zeitgeist point to an impor- ized by well-defined goals and challenging but not impossible
tant practical and theoretical implication of the foregoing dis- expectations seems desirable. Moreover, one might hypothesize
cussion. Nearly all studies of creativity are concerned with the that ensuring a firm grasp of relevant understandings and acqui-
prediction and understanding of creative potential. Tradition- sition-pertinent information would also facilitate application of
ally, creative potential has been assessed through one or two existing knowledge structures. On the other hand, when the
trait-oriented measures, and creativity studies have tended to generation of new understandings is of concern, the availability
examine only a limited number of simple linear relations. How- of well-defined goals and knowledge structures will probably
ever, the perspective presented earlier, like the background-data prove of limited value. Instead, a climate that encourages risk
literature (Barren & Harrington, 1981) or Cattell's (1971) cre- taking and open questioning while it emphasizes diverse experi-
ativity equation, suggests that creative potential is an inherently ences, the acquisition of multiple understandings, and the value
multivariate phenomenon that involves a variety of cognitive of new understandings seems more useful.
attributes and personality characteristics. Accordingly, more Given the differential affinity of young adults and middle-
complex predictive systems seem called for if validity coeffi- aged people for major and minor contributions, this discussion
INNOVATION 39
of climatic influences suggests that somewhat different environ- Albaum, G. (1976). Selecting specialized creators: The independent in-
ments may be required for maximizing the creative achieve- novation. Psychological Reports, 37, 175-179.
ment of younger and older adults (Macon, 1987). Further, the Albaum, G., & Baker, K. (1977). Cross-validation of a creativity scale
nature of creative contributions and the requisite climate for for the Adjective Check List. Educational and Psychological Measure-
ment, 37, 1057-1061.
creativity might be expected to change as the proportion of the
Albert, R. S. (1975). Toward a behavioral definition of genius. American
population in young adulthood and middle age changes. These
Psychologist, 30, 140-151.
differences in optimal climate, when coupled with the graying
Albert, R. S. (1980). Family positions and the attainment of eminence.
of the American work force (Stewman, 1986), indicate the ne-
Gifted Child Quarterly, 24, 87-95.
cessity of attending to potential age differences in establishing Albert, R. S. (1983). Overview: Issues and history. In R. S. Albert (Ed.),
a climate for creativity. Genius and eminence (pp. 1-13). New \brk: Pergamon Press.
In addition, substantially greater investments should be made Alissa, I. (1972). Stimulus generalization and over-inclusion in normal
in developing young adults who appear capable of making ma- and schizophrenic subjects. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 34, 182-
jor contributions. Because the proportion of young adults is 186.
rapidly declining in America, the likelihood of major break- Alpaugh, P. K., & Birren, J. E. (1977). Creativity between ages 18 and
throughs might also be expected to decline (Mumford, Olsen, 60. Human Development, 20, 261-276.
& James, 1987). When these observations are coupled with the Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A compo-
fundamental social import of major innovations, scientific and nential conceptualization. Journalof Personality and Social Psychol-
economic progress might well be facilitated by systematic ogy, 45, 357-376.
Amabile, T. M., Hennessey, B. A., & Grossman, B. S. (1986). Social
efforts to identify high-potential young adults and subsequently
influences on creativity: The effects of contracted-for reward. Journal
place these individuals in occupations and occupational envi-
of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 14-23.
ronments in which their talents are most likely to flower.
Andrews, F. M. (1975). Social and psychological factors that influence
Without negating the above discussion, one must consider an
the creative process. In I. A. Taylor & J. W. Getzels (Eds.), Perspectives
important constraint on this general conclusion. The age in creativity (pp. 117-145). Chicago: Aldine.
differences that we speak of represent general curves of aggre- Arieti, S. (1976). Creativity: The magic synthesis. New York: Basic
gate data around which substantial variability exists. Therefore, Books.
by no means are we implying that many young adults are not Arlin, P. K. (1977). Piagetian operations in problem finding. Develop-
more comfortable applying existing structures or that middle- mental Psychology, 13, 297-298.
aged adults are incapable of generating the new understandings. Bailin, S. (1984). Can there be creativity without creation? Interchange,
In fact, McLeish (1976) and Taylor and Sacks (1981) have sug- 15, 13-22.
gested that creativity may indeed be evidenced in old age if intel- Baldwin, C. B., Colangelo, N., & Dettmann, D. F. (1984). Perspectives
lectual capacity and openness to change are maintained, and of creativity throughout the life span. Creative Child and Adult Quar-
Lesner and Hillman (1983) suggested that the self-evaluation terly, 9, 9-17.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social
characteristic of old age may act as a spur to renewed creative
cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
efforts. In accordance with Simonton's (1983a) comments
Barren, F. (1972). Artists in the making. New York: Seminar.
about the centrality of psychological age, it should also be
Barron, F, & Harrington, D. M. (1981). Creativity, intelligence, and
pointed out that the conditions spurring creativity in young
personality. In M. R. Rosenzweig & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Annual re-
adulthood might be recreated through the adaptive demands of
view oj'psychology (pp. 439-476). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.
mid-life career change. To the extent that career changes do oc-
Barsalou, L. W. (1982). Context-independent and context-dependent
cur in middle age, their relative rarity notwithstanding, they information in concepts. Memory and Cognition, 10, 82-93.
may well trigger the same integration of knowledge structures Barsalou, L. W. (1983). Ad hoc categories. Memory and Cognition, 11,
that characterizes young adults' major contributions. Given 211-227.
their potential to engender major creative contributions, failure Berlyne, D. (1960). Conflict, arousal, and curiosity. New York: Mc-
to encourage such career redirections might constitute a costly Graw-Hill.
error, particularly when these redirections represent extensions Berry, C. (1981). The Nobel scientists and the origins of scientific
of past activities into related, albeit different, domains of en- achievement. British Journal of Sociology, 32, 381 -391.
deavor. In sum, we completely concur with Taylor and Sacks's Besemer, S. P., & Treffinger, D. J. (1981). Analysis of creative products:
contention that American society can ill afford to neglect the Review and synthesis. Journal of Creative Behavior, 15, 158-178.
creative resources of any age group. Rather, it behooves Ameri- Bradshaw, G. F., Langley, P. W., & Simon, H. A. (1983). Studying scien-
tific discovery by computer simulation. Science, 222, 971-975.
cans to systematically develop creative potential wherever it
Bray, D. W., Campbell, R. G., & Grant, D. C. (1974). Formative years
may be found.
in business. New 'ifork: Wiley.
Briskman, L. (1980). Creative product and creative process in science
and art. Inquiry, 23, 83-106.
References
Busse, T. V., & Mansfield, R. S. (1980). Theories of the creative process:
Abbey, A., & Dickson, J. W. (1983). R & D work climate and innovation A review and a perspective. Journal of Creative Behavior, 14,91 -103.
in semiconductors. Academy a/Management Journal, 26, 362-368. Carroll, L. (1974). Alice's adventures in wonderland and Through the
Adams, C. W. (1946). The age at which scientists do their best work. looking £/<m.Cleveland, OH: Collins-World. (Original work pub-
Iris, 36, 166-169. lished 1872)
Ainsworth-Land, V. (1982). Imaging and creativity: An integrating per- Cattell, R. B. (1971). Abilities: Their structure, growth and action. Bos-
spective. Journal of Creative Behavior, 16, 5-28. ton, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Chambers, J. A. (1964). Relating personality and biographical factors Fleishman, E. A. (1975). Toward a taxonomy of human performance.
to scientific creativity. Psychological Monograph, 78. American Psychologist, 30, 1127-1133.
Chi, M. X, Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and Friedricksen, N., & Ward, W. C. (1978). Measures for the study of cre-
representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive ativity in scientific problem solving. Applied Psychological Measure-
Science, 5, 121-152. ment, 2, 1-24.
Clark, R. D., & Rice, G. A. (1982). Family constellations and eminence: Gallon, F. (1883). Inquiries into human faculties and its development.
The birth orders of Nobel prize winners. The Journal of Psychology, London: Macmillan.
110, 281-287. Getzels, J. W., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). From problem solving
Cole, S. (1979). Age and scientific performance. American Journal of to problem finding. In I. A. Taylor & J. W. Getzels (Eds.), Perspectives
Sociology, 84,958-977. in creativity (pp. 90-116). Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Cornelius, G. M., & Yawkey, T. D. (1985). Imaginativeness in pre- Getzels, J. W., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1976). The creative vision: A
schooler and single-parent families. Journal of Creative Behavior, 19, longitudinal study of problem finding in art. New \brfc Wiley.
56-66. Getzels, J. W, & Jackson, P. W. (1962). Creativity and intelligence: Ex-
Cox, C. M. (1926). Genetic studies of genius: The early mental traits of plorations with gifted students. New York: Wiley.
three hundred geniuses. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Ghiselin, B. (1963). Ultimate criteria for two levels of creativity. In
Cronbach, L. S. (1968). Intelligence? Creativity? A parsimonious rein- C. W. Taylor & F. Barren (Eds.), Scientific creativity: Its recognition
terpretation of the Wallach-Kogan data. American Journal of'Educa- and development (pp. 30-43). New York: Wiley.
tional Research, 5,491-511. Glass, G. V. (1978). Integrating findings: The meta-analysis of research.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Beattie, Q U. (1979). Life themes: A theoreti- In L. S. Schulman (Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 5, pp.
cal and empirical exploration of their origins and effects. Journal of 118-131). ItascaJL: Peacock.
Humanistic Psychology, 19,45-63. Glover, J. A. (1979). Levels of questions asked in interview and reading
Darley, J. M. (1978). Energy conservation techniques as innovations, sessions by creative and relatively noncreative college students. Jour-
and their diffusion. Energy and Buildings, 1, 339-343. nal of Genetic Psychology, 135, 103-108.
Datta, C. E. (1967). Family religious background and early scientific Gotz, K. Q, &Gotz, K.(1979). Personality characteristics of successful
creativity. American Sociological Review, 32,626-635. artists. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 49,919-924.
Deeg, M. E., & Paterson, D. G. (1947). Changes in the social status of Gough, H. G. (1976). Studying creativity by means of word association
occupations. Occupations, 25, 205-208. tests. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 348-353.
Dennis, W. (1956). Age and achievement: A critique. Journal of'Geron- Gough, H. G. (1979). A creative personality scale for the Adjective
tology, 11, 331-333. Check List Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1398-
Dennis, W. (1958). The age development of scientific achievement. 1405.
American Psychologist, 13, 457-460. Gould, R. L. (1978). Transformations: Growth and change in adult life.
Dennis, W. (1966). Creativity between the ages of 20 and 80. Journal of New York: Simon & Schuster.
Gerontology, 21, 1-8. Granovetter, M. (1983). The strength of weak ties—A network theory
Derenberg, V. H., & Bell, R. W. (1960). Critical periods for the effects revisited. In R. Collins (Ed.), Sociological theory 1983 (pp. 201-233).
of infantile experience on adult learning. Science, 131, 227-228. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Deva, I. (1984). A sociological perspective of time and creativity. Impact Gruber, H. E. (1983). History and creative work: From the most ordi-
of Science on Society, 34, 197-202. nary to the most exalted. Journal of the History of the Behavioral
Dillion, J. T. (1982). Problem finding and solving. Journal of Creative Sciences. 19,4-14.
Behavior, 16,97-111. Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 14,469-479.
Domino, E. (1982). Attitudes towards dreams, sex differences and cre- Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York:
ativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 16, 112-122. McGraw-Hill.
Downs, G. W., & Mohr, L. B. (1979). Toward a theory of innovation. Guilford, 1. P. (1982). Is some creative thinking irrational? Journal of
Administration and Society, 10, 374-408. Creative Behavior, 16, 151-154.
Eiduson, B. T. (1962). Scientists: Their psychological world. New York: Guilford, J. P., & Christensen, P. R. (1973). The one way relation be-
Basic Books. tween creative potential and IQ. Journal of Creative Behavior, 7,247-
Einhorn, H. J., & Hogarth, R. M. (1981). Behavioral decision theory. 252.
In M. R. Rosenzweig & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Annual review of psychol- Guion, R. M. (1965). Personnel testing. New York: McGraw-Hill.
ogy (pp. 53-88). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews. Haan, N. (1981). Adolescents and young adults as producers of their
Ellison, R. L., James, L. R., & Carron, T. (1970). Prediction of R & D own development. In R. M. Lerner & N. A. Busch-Rossnagel (Eds.),
performance criteria with biographical information. Journal of In- Individuals as producers of their own development: A life span per-
dustrial Psychology, S, 37-57. spective (pp. 155-182). New \brk: Academic Press.
Ellison, R. L., James, L. R., McDonald, B. W., Fox, D. G., & Taylor, Hall, J., & Jones, D. C. (1950). Social grading of occupations. British
C. W. (1968). The prediction of scientific and engineering perfor- Journal of Sociology, 1, 31-55.
mance with biographical information. Unpublished report of the In- Hall, W. B., & MacKinnon, D. W. (1969). Personality inventory corre-
stitute of Behavioral Research in Creativity, Salt Lake City, Utah. lates of creativity among architects. Journal of Applied Psychology,
Erikson, E. H. (1959). Identity and the life cycle. Psychological Issues, 53, 322-326.
1, 1-171. Harmon, L.R. (1963). The development of acriterion of scientific com-
Evans, R. G., & Forbach, G. B. (1983). Facilitation of performance on petence. In C. W. Taylor & F. Barren (Eds.), Scientific creativity: Its
a divergent measure of creativity: A closer look at instructions to "be development and recognition (pp. 44-52). New York: Wiley.
creative." Applied Psychological Measurement, 7, 181-187. Harrington, D. M. (1981). Creativity, analogical thinking and muscular
Feldman, D. H. (1982). A developmental framework for research with metaphors. Journal of Mental Imagery, 6,121-126.
BLftedcbilihen.NewDirectionsforChildDevelopment, 17, 31-45. Harrington, D. M., Block, J., & Block, J. H. (1983). Predicting creativ-
Fiske, D. W. (1979). Two worlds of psychological phenomena. American ity in preadolescence from divergent thinking in early childhood.
Psychologist, 34,733-734. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45,609-623.
INNOVATION 41
Hausman, C. R. (1979). Criteria of creativity. Philosophy and Phenom- Lehman, H. C. (1954). Men's creative production rate at different ages
enologicalResearch, 40,237-249. and in different countries. Science Monographs, 78, 321-326.
Havens, A. E., & Flinn, W. (1975). Green revolution technology and Lehman, H. C. (1958). The chemist's most creative years. Science, 127,
community development: The limits of action programs. Economic 1213-1222.
development and cultural change, 23, 469-481. Lehman, H. C. (1960). The age decrement in outstanding scientific cre-
Havinghurst, R. J. (1954). Life styles of middle-aged people. Human ativity. American Psychologist, 15, 128-134.
Development, 2,25-34. Lehman, H. C. (1966). The most creative years of engineers and other
Kelson, R., & Crutchfield, R. S. (1970). Creative types in mathematics. technologists. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 108,263-270.
Journal of Personality, 38,177-197. Lesner, W. J., & Hillman, D. (1983). A developmental schema of cre-
Hocevar, D. (1980). Intelligence, divergent thinking and creativity. Intel- ativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 17, 103-114.
ligence, 4, 25-40. Levenson, J. (1978). The seasons of man. New York: Wiley.
Hocevar, D. (1981). Measurement of creativity: Review and critique. Lind, S. K., & Mumford, M. D. (1987, March). Values as predictors of
Journal of Personality Assessment, 45, 450-464. job performance and advancement potential. Paper presented at the
Hogarth, R. M. (1980). Decision making. New York: Wiley. meetings of the Southeastern Psychological Association, Atlanta,
Horn, J. L. (1976). Human abilities: A review of research and theory in Georgia.

the early 1920's. In R. M. Rosenzweig & L. W. Pouter (Eds.), Annual Lissitz, R. W., & Willhoft, J. L. (1985). A methodological study of the
review of psychology (pp. 437-485). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews. Tbrrance Tests of Creativity. Journal of Educational Measurement,
Howe, A. (1982). Biographical evidence and the development of out- 22, [-11.
standing individuals. American Psychologist, 37,1071-1081. Lowenthal, M. F., Thurnher, M., Chiriboga, D., Beeson, D., Gigy, L.,
Hudson, L. (1968). Frames of mind. London: Methuen. Lurie, E., Pierce, R., Spence, D., & Weiss, J. (1976). Four stages of
Humphreys, L. G. (1979). The construct of general intelligence. Intelli- life. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
gence, 3, 105-120. MacCurdy, G. (1956). Characteristics and backgrounds of superior sci-
Jaquish, G. A., & Ripple, R. E. (1981). Cognitive creative abilities and ence students. School Review, 64,2-25.
self-esteem across the adult life-span. Human Development, 24,110- MacKinnon, D. W. (1962). The nature and nurture of creative talent.
119. American Psychologist, 17,484-495.
Kaha, C. W. (1983). The creative mind: Form and process. Journal of Macon, D. A. (1987, March). Age, climate and personality as predictors
Creative Behavior, 17, 84-94. of scientific productivity. Paper presented at the meetings of the
Kasperson, C. J. (1978). Psychology of the scientists: XXXVII. Scien- Southeastern Psychological Association, Atlanta, Georgia.
tific creativity: A relationship with information channels. Psychologi- McLeish, J. A. B. (1976). The Ulyssean adult: Creativity in the middle
cal Reports, 42,691-694. and later years. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Kennett, K. F. (1978). Creativity, family size and socioeconomic status. Mednick, S. A., &Mednick, M. T. (1967). Examiners'manual: Remote
Contributions a I'EtudedesSciencesdel'Homme, 9, 45-55. Associations Test. Boston: Houghton Miftlin.
Kennett, K. F. (1984). Creativity: Educational necessity for modern so- Mendelsohn, G. A. (1976). Associative and attentional processes in cre-
ciety. Education, 105, 2-6. ative performance. Journal of Personality, 44, 451-471.
Knapp, R. H. (1963). Demographic, cultural and personality attributes Morrison, R. R, Owens, U. A., Glennon, J. R., & Albright, L. E. (1962).
of scientists. In C. W. Taylor & R. Barron (Eds.), Scientific creativity: Factored life history antecedents of industrial research performance.
Its recognition and development (pp. 205-216). New York: Wiley. Journal of Applied Psychology, 46, 281-284.
Knapp, R. H., & Greenbaum, J. C. (1952). The younger American Motamedi, K. (1982). Extending the concept of creativity. Journal of
scholar: His collegiate origins. Wesleyan University alumnus. Chi- Creative Behavior, 16, 112-122.
cago: University of Chicago Press. Mumford, M. D. (1984). Age and outstanding occupational achieve-
Koestler, A. (1964). The act of creation. New York: Macmillan. ment: Lehman revisited. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 25, 225-
Kogan, N. (1973). Creativity and cognitive styles: A life span perspec- 244.
tive. In P. B. Baltes & W. K. Schaie (Eds.), Life span developmental Mumford, M. D., Olsen, K. A., & James, L. R. (1987, April). Age and
psychology: Personality and socialization (pp. 316-341). New York: innovation: Demographic influences on creative production. Paper
Academic Press. presented at the meetings of the Society for Industrial and Organiza-
Kogan, N., Connor, K., Gross, A., & Fava, D. (1980). Understanding tional Psychology, Atlanta, Georgia.
visual metaphor Developmental and individual differences. Mono- Mumford, M. D., & Owens, W. A. (1984). Individuality in a develop-
graphs of Social Research in Child Development, 183, 1. mental context: Some empirical and theoretical considerations. Hu-
Kogan, N., & Pankove, E. (1974). Long-term predictive validity of di- man Development, 27, 84-105.
vergent-thinking tests: Some negative evidence. Journal of Educa- Mumford, M. D., Wesley, S. S., & Shaffer, G. S. (1987). Individuality
tional Psychology, 66, 802-810. in a developmental context: II. The crystalization of developmental
Kris, E. (1952). Psychoanalytic explorations in art. New York: Interna- trajectories. Human Development, 30,291-322.
tional Universities Press. Neugarten, B. L. (1968). The awareness of middle age. In B. L. Neugar-
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: Uni- ten(Ed.), Middle age and aging (pp. 191-198). Chicago: University
versity of Chicago Press. of Chicago Press.
LaBouvie-Vief, G., & Chandler, M. (1978). Cognitive development and Nicholls, J. G. (1972). Creativity in the person who will never produce
life span developmental theory: Idealistic versus contextual perspec- anything original and useful: The concept of creativity as a normally
tives. In P. Baltes (Ed.), Life span development (Vol. 1, pp. 182-211). distributed trait. American Psychologist, 27, 717-727.
New York: Academic Press. Owen, S. V., & Baum, S. M. (1985). The validity of the measurement
Langley, P. W., Simon, H. A., Bradshaw, G. F., & Zytkow, J. M. (1986). of originality. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 45,939-
Scientific discovery: Computational explorations of the creative pro- 944.
cesses. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Owens, W. A. (1969). Cognitive, noncognitive and environmental corre-
Lehman, H. C. (1953). Age and achievement. Princeton, NJ: Princeton lates of mechanical ingenuity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53,
University Press. 199-208.
Pearlman, C. (1983). A theoretical model for creativity. Education, 103, and nongifted children. Educational and Psychological Measure-
294-305. ment, 45, 483-501.
Pelz, D. C. (1956). Some social factors related to performance in a re- Schaefer, C. E. (1969). The prediction of creative achievement from a
search organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1, 310-325. biographical inventory. Educational and Psychological Measure-
Pelz, D. C. (1983). Use of information channels in urban innovation. ment, 29, 431-437.
Knowledge, 5, 3-25. Schaefer, C. E. (1972). Associative and attentional processes in creative
Perkins, D. N. (1983). Novel remote analogies seldom contribute to young women. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 35, 245-285.
discovery. Journal of Creative Behavior, 17, 223-239. Schaie, W. K., & Hertzog, C. (1986). Toward a comprehensive model of
Piaget, J. (1967). Six psychological studies. New York: Random House. adult intellectual development. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Advances in
Piaget, J. (1972). Intellectual evolution from adolescence to adulthood. the psychology of human intelligence (Vol. 3, pp. 206-241). Hillsdale,
Human Development, 15,1-12. NJ: Erlbaum.
Poze, T. (1983). Analogical connections: The essence of creativity. Jour- Schien, E. H. (1980). Career dynamics: Matching individual and organ-
nal of Creative Behavior, 17, 240-258. izational needs. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Rejskind, F. G. (1982). Autonomy and creativity in children. Journal of Schubert, D. S. (1973). Intelligence as necessary but not sufficient for
Creative Behavior, 16, 58-67. creativity. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 122,45-47.

Resnick, L. B. (1976). The nature of intelligence. Hillsdale, NJ: Erl- Silver, H. R. (1983). Scientific achievement and the concept of risk. Brit-
baum. ish Journal of Sociology, 34, 39-43.
Richards, R. L. (1976). A comparison of selected Guilford and Wallach- Simonton, D. K. (1975). Sociocultural context of individual creativity:
Kogan Creative Thinking Tests in conjunction with measures of intel- A transhistorical time-series analysis. Journal of Personality and So-
ligence. Journal of Creative Behavior, 10, 178-182. cial Psychology, 32, 1119-1133.
Ridley, D. R. (1979). Barron-Welsh scores and creativity: A second Simonton, D. K. (1979). Multiple discovery or invention: Zeitgeist, ge-
look. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 49, 756-758. nius, or chance? Journal Ojf Personality and Social Psychology, 37,
Roadheaver, D., & Datan, N. (1981). Making it: The dialectics of middle 1603-1616.
age. In R. M. Lerner & N. H. Busch-Rossnagel (Eds.), Individuals as Simonton, D. K. (1983a). Creative productivity and age: A mathemati-
producers of their own development: A life span perspective (pp. 183- cal model based on a two-step cognitive process. Developmental Re-
196). New York: Academic Press. view, 4,Ti'-111.
Rodgers, E. M., & Adhikarya, R. (1979). Diffusion of innovations: Up Simonton, D. K. (1983b). Formal education, eminence and dogmatism:
to date review and commentary. In D. Nimmo (Ed.), Communication The curvilinear relationship. Journal of Creative Behavior, 17, 149-
Yearbook 3 (pp. 67-81). Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books. 162.
Rodgers, E. M., & Kincaid, D. C. (1981). Communication networks: Simonton, D. K. (1984a). Artistic creativity and interpersonal relation-
Toward a new paradigm for research. New York: Free Press. ships across and within generations. Journal of Personality and Social
Rodgers, E. M., & Shoemaker, F. (1971). Communication of innova- Psychology. 46, 1273-1286.
tions: A cross-cultural approach. New York: Free Press. Simonton, D. K. (1984b). Genius, creativity, and leadership. Cam-
Roe, A. (1951). A psychological study of physical scientists. Genetic Psy- bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
chology Monographs, 43, 121-235. Sladeczek, I., & Domino, G. (1985). Creativity, sleep and primary pro-
Roe, A. (195 3). The making of a scientist. New York: Dodd Mead. cess thinking in dreams. Journal of Creative Behavior, 19,38-46.
Roe, A. (1972). Maintenance of creative output through the years. In Smith, G., & Carlsson, I. (1983). Can preschool children be creative?
C. W. Taylor (Ed.), Climate for creativity (pp. 90-101). New York: Archives of Psychology, 135, 37-53.
Pergamon Press. Smith, G., & Carlsson, I. (1985). Creativity in middle and late school
Roling, N. G., Ashcroft, J., & Chege, F. W. (1976). The diffusion of years. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 8, 329-343.
innovations and the issue of equity in rural development. In E. M. Snow, R. E. (1986). Individual differences and the design of educational
Rogers (Ed.), Communication and development (pp. 63-79). Beverly programs. American Psychologist, 41, 1029-1034.
Hills, CA: Sage. Sobel, R. S. (1978). Remote associations theory of creativity: Fifteen
Romaniuk, J. G., & Romaniuk, M. (1981). Creativity across the life years later. (From Journal of Supplemental Abstract Services, MS
span: A measurement perspective. Human Development, 24, 366- 1735)
381. Sobel, R. S., & Rothenberg, A. (1980). Artistic creation as stimulated
Rose, L. H., & Lin, H. (1984). A meta-analysis of long-term creativity by superimposed versus separated visual images. Journal of Personal-
training programs. Journal of Creative Behavior, 18, 11-22. ity and Social Psychology, 39, 953-961.
Ross, R. J. (1973). Some empirical parameters of formal thinking. Jour- Sontag, L. W. (1971). The history of longitudinal research: Implications
nal of Youth and Adolescence, 2, 167-177. for the future. Child Development, 42, 989-1002.
Ross, R. J. (1976). The development of formal thinking and creativity Stein, M. I. (1968). Creativity. In F. Bogarta & W. W. Lambert (Eds.),
in adolescence. Adolescence, 11,609-617. Handbook of personality theory and research (pp. 67-89). Chicago:
Rothenberg, A. (1976). Homospatial thinking in creativity. Archives of Rand McNally.
General Psychiatry, 33,17-26. Sternberg, R. J. (1982). Nonentrenchment in the assessment of intellec-
Rothenberg, A. (1979). The emerging goddess: The creative process in tual giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 26, 63-67.
art, science, and other fields. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Implicit theories of intelligence, creativity, and
Rothenberg, A. (1986). Artistic creation as stimulated by superimposed wisdom. Jourruil of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 607-627.
versus combined-composite visual images. Journal of Personality Stewman, S. (1986). Labor markets, aging and health. In J. E. Birren,
and Social Psychology, 50, 370-381. P. K. Robinson, & J. E. Livingston (Eds.), Age, health, and employ-
Rothenberg, A., & Sobel, R. S. (1980). Creation of literary metaphors ment (pp. 114-157). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
as stimulated by superimposed versus separated visual images. Jour- Suler, J. R. (1980). Primary process thinking and creativity. Psychologi-
nal of Mental Imagery, 4, 77-91. cal Bulletin, 88, 144-165.
Runco, M. A., & Albert, R. S. (1985). The reliability and validity of Taylor, C. W. (1963). Variables related to creativity and productivity
ideational originality in the divergent thinking of academically gifted among men in two research laboratories. In C. W. Taylor & F. Barron
INNOVATION 43
(EAi.),Scientificcreativity:Itsrecognitionanddevelopment(pp.22K- Trollinger, L. M. (1979). A study of the biographical and personality

250). New York: Wiley. factors of creative women in music. Doctoral dissertation, Temple
Taylor, C. W. (1964). Introduction. In C. W. Taylor (Ed.), Creativity: University, Philadelphia, PA.
Progress and potential (pp. 1-14). New York: McGraw-Hill. Trollinger, L. M. (1983). Interests, activities and hobbies of high and low
Taylor, C. W. (1972). Can organizations be creative, too? In C. W. Taylor creative women musicians during childhood, adolescent and college
(Ed.), Climate for creativity (pp. 1-15). New York: Pergamon Press. years. Gifted Child Quarterly, 27, 94-97.
Taylor, C. W., & Sacks, D. (1981). Facilitating lifetime creative pro-
Tylei; L. E. (1965). The psychology of human differences. Englewood
cesses—A think piece. Gifted Child Quarterly, 25, 116-118.
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Taylor, C. W., Smith, W. R., & Ghiselin, B. (1963). The creative and
Tyler, L. E. (1978). Individuality. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
other contributions of one sample of research scientists. In C. W. Tay-
lor & F. Barren (Eds.), Scientific creativity: Its recognition and devel- Vaillant, G. L. (1977). Adaption to life. New York: Wiley.
opment (pp. 53-76). New York: Wiley. Vaillant, G. L., & McArthur, C. L. (1972). Natural history and male
Terman, L. M. (1954). The discovery and encouragement of exceptional psychological health in the adult life cycle from 18 to 50. Seminars
talent. American Psychologist, 9, 221-230. in Psychiatry, 15, 405-413.
Terman, L. M., & Oden, M. (1959). The gifted group at mid-life. Stan-
Vernon, P. E. (1971). Effects of administration and scoring on divergent

ford, CA: Stanford University Press. thinking tests. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 41, 245-
Thistlewaite, D. L. (1963). The college environment as a determinant 250.
of research potentiality. In C. W. Taylor & F. Barren (Eds.), Scientific Weiss, D. S. (1981). A multigroup study of personality patterns in cre-
creativity: Its recognition and development (pp. 265-271). New \brk:
ativity. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 52, 735-746.
Wiley.
Wolf, F. M., & Larson, G. L. (1981). On why adolescent formal opera-
Tornatzky, L. G., & Klein, K. J. (1982). Innovation characteristics and
tors may not be creative thinkers. Adolescence, 16, 345-348.
innovation adoption-implementation: A meta-analysis of findings.
IEEE Transactions of Engineering and Management, EM-29, 28- Zaltman, G., & Wallendorf, M. (1979). Consumer behavior: Basic find-
45. ings and management implications. New %rk: Wiley.
Torrance, E. P. (1965). Rewarding creative behavior. Englewood Cliffs, Zuckerman, H. (1974). The scientific elite: Nobel laureates' mutual in-
NJ: Prentice-Hall. fluence. In R. S. Albert (Ed.), Genius and eminence (pp. 171-186).
Torrance, E. P. (1972). Predictive validity of the Torrance Tests of Cre- New York: Pergamon Press.
ative Thinking. Journal of Creative Behavior, 6, 236-252.
Torrance, E. P. (1983). Role of mentors in creative achievement. Cre-
ative Child and Adult Quarterly, 8, 8-15.
Treffmger, D. J., Isaksen, S. G., & Firestein, R. L. (1983). Theoretical Received November 24,1986
perspectives on creative learning and its facilitation: An overview. Revision received April 1, 1987
Journal of Creative Behavior, 17,9-17. Accepted April 6,1987 •
Call for Nominations for Editor ofJEP: General
The Publications and Communications Board has opened nominations for the editorship of the
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General for the years 1990-1995. Sam Glucksberg is the
incumbent editor. Candidates must be members of APA and should be available to start receiv-
ing manuscripts in early 1989 to prepare for issues published in 1990. Please note that the
P&C Board encourages more participation by women and ethnic minority men and women in
the publication process and would particularly welcome such nominees. To nominate candi-
dates, prepare a statement of one page or less in support of each candidate. Submit nominations
no later than February 15,1988, to
Donald J. Foss
Department of Psychology
University of Texas
Austin, Texas 78712
Other members of the search committee are James J. Jenkins, Jean Mandler, J. E. R. Staddon,
and Saul Sternberg.

Creativity Syndrome: Integration, Application, and Innovation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Creativity Syndrome: Integration, Application, and Innovation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Creativity Syndrome: Integration, Application, and Innovation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bulletin Copyright 1988 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.

103, No. 1,27-43 0033-2909/88/«00.75

Creativity Syndrome: Integration, Application, and Innovation

Michael D. Mumford Sigrid B. Gustafson

ative achievement is that pertaining to the development of inde-

pendence or autonomy. For example, Stein (1968) and Datta

trends apparent in the broader literature, it should be recog-

Horn, J. L. (1976). Human abilities: A review of research and theory in Georgia.

Creative Behavior, 16, 58-67. creativity. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 122,45-47.

(EAi.),Scientificcreativity:Itsrecognitionanddevelopment(pp.22K- Trollinger, L. M. (1979). A study of the biographical and personality

Vernon, P. E. (1971). Effects of administration and scoring on divergent

Call for Nominations for Editor ofJEP: General

You might also like