CREATIVITY RESEARCH JOURNAL, 24(1), 92–96, 2012

Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 1040-0419 print=1532-6934 online
DOI: 10.1080/10400419.2012.650092

COMMENTS AND CORRECTIONS

The Standard Definition of Creativity

Mark A. Runco and Garrett J. Jaeger
Torrance Creativity Center, University of Georgia, Athens

This Correction focuses on issues surrounding definitions THE STANDARD DEFINITION

of creativity. No topic is more central to research
on creativity. There is a clear need to ‘‘correct’’ at least The standard definition is bipartite: Creativity requires
one all-too-common oversight found in definitions both originality and effectiveness. Are two criteria really
within the creativity literature. necessary?
Not surprisingly, nearly every article in the CRJ at Originality is undoubtedly required. It is often labeled
least briefly defines creativity. The problem is that many novelty, but whatever the label, if something is not
articles cite books or articles from the 1990s or, at best, unusual, novel, or unique, it is commonplace, mundane,
the 1980s, when defining creativity, when, in fact, the or conventional. It is not original, and therefore not
definition they are using—which is broadly accepted creative.
and thus can be called the standard definition—actually Originality is vital for creativity but is not sufficient.
has a long history. It is a shame that the early discus- Ideas and products that are merely original might very
sions of the standard definition are ignored. Some of well be useless. They may be unique or uncommon for
them are rich and remain entirely relevant. They are good reason! Originality can be found in the word salad
cited in the following. of a psychotic and can be produced by monkeys on word
The overarching purpose of all Corrections is to processors. A truly random process will often generate
remind researchers that the field of creativity studies something that is merely original.
predates online literature searches. Although the science So again, originality is not alone sufficient for creativ-
of creativity is, in some ways, unique and unlike other ity. Original things must be effective to be creative. Like
scientific endeavors (see Runco, in press, for details), the originality, effectiveness takes various forms. It may take
field of creativity studies relies on the scientific method the form of (and be labeled as) usefulness, fit, or appropri-
and is implicitly collaborative. Research builds on pre- ateness. The Inaugural Editorial of the CRJ, which
vious research. Originality is a core value in creativity stu- appeared nearly 25 years ago, referred to utility when
dies, but this does not justify ignoring relevant research describing what kind of research would be published
that was done previously. Good research is integrated (Runco, 1988). Creative research on creativity would
into the larger field, citing what came before, in addition be published, and the standard definition was used:
its originality and utility. Corrections in the CRJ ensure ‘‘Originality is vital, but must be balanced with fit and
that due credit is given to earlier research. appropriateness’’ (Runco, 1988, p. 4).
The field of creativity studies has roots in the 1950s, Effectiveness may take the form of value. This label is
1940s, and 1930s. Domain differences were examined in quite clear in the economic research on creativity; it
the 1930s (e.g., Patrick, 1935, 1937, 1938), and social describes how original and valuable products and ideas
criteria of creativity relying on consensual agreement depend on the current market, and more specifically on
go back at least to 1953 (Stein, 1953), just to name the costs and benefits of contrarianism (i.e., originality;
two examples. When was the standard definition of Rubenson, 1991; Rubenson & Runco, 1992, 1995;
creativity first proposed? Sternberg & Lubart, 1991). Value was also recognized
by Bethune—in 1839! He described value as:
Correspondence should be sent to Mark A. Runco, Torrance
Creativity Center, University of Georgia, Aderhold Hall, Athens, The stability of the fabric which gives perpetuity to the
GA 30602. E-mail: [email protected] decoration. To mingle the useful with the beautiful, is
 STANDARD DEFINITION OF CREATIVITY 93

the highest style of art. The one adds grace, the other Royce (1898) was on the right track, and, like
value. It would be a poor summing up of a life upon Bethune (1839), he worked before 1900:
earth, to find that all the powers of an immortal intellect
had been devoted to the amusement of idle hours, or the
excitement of empty mirth, or even the mere gratifi- In general, whether with or without deliberation, the
cation of taste, without a single effort to make men wiser effort to make the unlike results in a pretty constant
and better and happier. If the examination be made, it and subtle modification of the style of the original habits,
will be found, that those works of Genius are the most a modification small, but visible, and due, if you like, to
appreciated, which are the most pregnant with truth, suggestion. Here is a blending of one’s own style with the
which give us the best illustrations of nature, the best results of outer stimulus. It is just such blending that, in
pictures of the human heart, the best maxims of life, in some arts and even in some sort of scientific work, consti-
a word, which are the most useful. (p. 61) tutes valuable inventiveness. (p. 145)

Bethune referred to art, and genius, but he assumed Royce’s (1898) mention of ‘‘variation’’ is quite inter-
that creativity played a role in each. Continuing, esting, given the ongoing debate about blind variation
and selective retention as requirements for the creative
process (Gabora, 2011; Runco, 2007a; Simonton, 2007;
Yet familiar as the effects of Genius are, it is not easy to
define what Genius is. The etymology of the term will, Weisberg & Hass, 2007), but what is most pertinent is
however, assist us. It is derived from the verb, signifying the phrase ‘‘valuable inventiveness.’’ Still, Royce did
to engender or create, because it has the quality of orig- not use the words originality, creativity, nor even useful-
inating new combinations of thought, and of presenting ness, and although invention is sometimes associated with
them with great clearness and force. Originality of creativity, it is certainly not a synonym (Runco, 2007b).
conception, and energy of expression, are essential to Hutchinson (1931, p. 393) did use the word creativity
Genius. (p. 59) and included ‘‘practicality’’ in his view of it. In his words,
‘‘In general. such contributions bear on the implications
It was common to conflate creativity and genius in of creative thought for ethics, rather than on the tech-
Bethune’s (1839) era, and, in fact, that same blend can nique of attaining creativeness itself. From a more practi-
be seen well into the 1900s. cal standpoint... creative thought makes transformations
Bethune (1839) quoted Shakespeare when describing in the world’’ (emphasis added). That ‘‘practical stand-
the two facets of genius: point’’ could be the perspective of the author (and not
the practicality of the creative act), but Hutchinson tied
The poet’s eye, in a fine frenzy rolling, it to events ‘‘in the world.’’ Presumably, these are realistic
Doth glace from heaven to earth, from earth to heaven— or useful in or for our lives. It could be that he was refer-
And as imagination bodies forth ring to a method for finding creative ideas (the transform-
The forms of things unknown, the poet’s pen ation of what already exists ‘‘in the world’’), in which case
Turns them to shape, and gives to airy nothing we still do not have an unambiguous proposal for the
A local habitation and a name. (p. 59) standard definition of creativity.
It is often a good tactic to work backwards. With that
This is from A Midsummer Night’s Dream (Act 5, in mind: The two-criterion view was already the standard
Scene 1, which was probably written after 1590 but definition in the 1960s. Bruner (1962), for example, in one
before 1596) and not surprisingly is only two lines of the true classics in the field, described how creativity
below what is probably the Shakespearean quotation requires ‘‘effective surprise’’ (p. 18). Cropley (1967)
most often cited in creativity research, namely, ‘‘The pointed to the need for creative things to be ‘‘worthwhile’’
lunatic, lover, and the poet=Are of imagination all (p. 67) and reflect some ‘‘compelling’’ property (p. 21).
compact.’’ Jackson and Messick (1965, p. 313) felt that products
The poetic description of imagination finding ‘‘a local must be ‘‘appropriate’’ and Kneller (1965, p. 7) stated
habituation and a name’’ is as suggestive as it is artful, that products must be ‘‘relevant.’’ Cattell and Butcher
but it is not a clear statement of originality and effective- (1968) and Heinelt (1974) used the terms pseudocreativity
ness. Thus, neither Shakespeare nor Bethune (1839) and quasicreativity to describe products that were not
should be credited with the original standard definition worthwhile or effective. Thus we must look for the first
of creativity. They seemed to be thinking about two presentation of the standard definition before 1960.
requirements that parallel originality and effectiveness, A second good tactic is to use base rates. This suggests
but their wording leaves a fair bit of ambiguity. In fact, a close examination of Institute for Personality and
some of the difficulty in finding the first occurrence of Social Research and the first generation of scholars com-
the standard definition is that the word creativity has a mitted to scientific research on creativity (see Helson,
fairly short history. 1999). Indeed, it will come as no surprise to serious
94 RUNCO AND JAEGER

students of creativity research that Barron (1955) men- qualities that contribute significantly to creative pro-
tioned the standard definition over 50 years ago. He ductivity. In other words, the psychologist’s problem is
wrote, that of creative personality. (p. 444)

A second criterion that must be met if a response is to be That is probably best viewed as a recommendation of
called original is that it must be to some extent adaptive what to study. It does not define creativity, other than
to reality. The intent of this requirement is to exclude tautologically ‘‘creativity is the characteristic of creative
uncommon responses which are merely random, or
people.’’
which proceed from ignorance or delusion. (p. 479)
Guilford (1950) did point to criteria for creativity
when he stated that ‘‘the creative person has novel ideas.
This quotation might be enough to credit Barron (1955)
The degree of novelty of which the person is capable, or
with the first explicit statement of the standard defi-
which he habitually exhibits... can be tested in terms of
nition, but then again, ‘‘adaptation to reality’’ was in
the frequency of uncommon, yet acceptable, responses
his discussion of originality and not creativity per se.
to items’’ (p. 452). He thus emphasized originality and
In fact, Barron referred to two criteria, but one was a
operationalized it as novelty and, even more precisely,
criterion for originality, not creativity. He wrote,
in terms of uncommon behaviors.
What of the second part of the standard definition?
The first criterion of an original response is that it should
Guilford (1950) did refer to acceptable ideas, the impli-
have a certain stated uncommonness in the particular
cation being that novelty by itself is not sufficient for
group being studied. A familiar example of this in
psychological practice is the definition of an original creativity. He explored this point further when he wrote,
response to the Rorschach inkblots, the requirement ‘‘Creative work that is to be realistic or accepted must be
there being that the response should, in the examiner’s done under some degree of evaluative restraint. Too
experience, occur no more often than once in 100 exam- much restraint, of course, is fatal to the birth of new
inations. (pp. 478–479) ideas. The selection of surviving ideas, however, requires
some evaluation’’ (p. 453). Thus, Guilford seemed to be
The title of Barron’s (1955) paper was ‘‘The Disposition assuming that creativity requires originality and effec-
Towards Originality,’’ and the two criteria he discussed tiveness. He used the terms realistic and acceptable for
were uncommonness and adaptation to reality. He was the latter, which is slightly problematic, but still he
therefore right on target for effectiveness (or usefulness, was thinking about creativity in a fashion that is entirely
utility, and value) but he was not explicit about how consistent with the standard definition.
this all fits with creativity! Creativity was a concern for The reason acceptable is a problematic way of labeling
Barron (1955); he opened this article by criticizing the the criterion of effectiveness is that it begs the question,
tendency ‘‘Acceptable for whom?’’ Long ago, Murray (1958)
asked, ‘‘Who is to judge the judges? And the judges of
to disembody the creative act and the creative process by the judges?’’ Simonton (in press) and Runco (2003) also
limiting our inquiry to the creator’s mental content at the saw the question of judges to be a part of issues of defi-
moment of insight, forgetting that it is a highly organized nition. Stein (1953) seemed to be aware of this issue
system of responding that lies behind, the particular orig- and, for this reason, distinguished between the internal
inal response which, because of its validity, becomes an and external frames of reference that might be used when
historical event. (p. 479) defining creativity.
As a matter of fact, to our reading, the first clear use
He was interested in creativity, but did not define it. of the standard definition seems to have been in an
He defined originality instead. article on creativity and culture, written by Stein
Guilford (1950) is often credited with publishing the (1953). In his words,
first compelling argument that creativity can be studied
scientifically. How did he define creativity? In his own Let us start with a definition. The creative work is a novel
words: work that is accepted as tenable or useful or satisfying by
a group in some point in time . . . . By ‘‘novel’’ I mean that
In its narrow sense, creativity refers to the abilities that the creative product did not exist previously in precisely
are most characteristic of creative people. Creative the same form . . . . The extent to which a work is novel
abilities determine whether the individual has the power depends on the extent to which it deviates from the tra-
to exhibit creative behavior to a noteworthy degree. ditional or the status quo. This may well depend on the
Whether or not the individual who has the requisite abili- nature of the problem that is attacked, the fund of
ties will actually produce results of a creative nature will knowledge or experience that exists in the field at the
depend upon his motivational and temperamental traits. time, and the characteristics of the creative individual
To the psychologist, the problem is as broad as the and those of the individuals with whom he [or she] is
 STANDARD DEFINITION OF CREATIVITY 95

communicating. Often, in studying creativity, we tend to only pinpoints which criteria must be used; it does not
restrict ourselves to a study of the genius because the say anything about who is to judge each, and who is
‘‘distance’’ between what he [or she] has done and what to judge the judges.
has existed is quite marked . . . . In speaking of creativity, Then there are questions about the number of criteria
therefore, it is necessary to distinguish between internal
that should be used in a definition of creativity. The
and external frames of reference. (pp. 311–312)
standard view points to two criteria, but perhaps there
are more—or fewer! Simonton (in press) made a strong
Stein (1953) was the first to offer the standard definition case for three criteria—surprise being the third—and
in an entirely unambiguous fashion, and unlike his pre- Runco (in press) raised the possibility that only one
decessors, he was without a doubt talking about creativ- criterion is needed. Simonton based his argument on
ity per se. He was not discussing originality, although guidelines from the U.S. Patent office; Runco felt that
novelty, and therefore originality, are vital for creativity, parsimony was the best guide. These two theories of
and he was not discussing genius, although he offered a creativity are easy to find in other issues of the CRJ.
useful perspective on it (the ‘‘distance’’).
Stein (1953) is also quoted in detail because he offered
several other ideas that are still in use and were well
ahead of their time. These include his ideas that (a) cre- REFERENCES
ative work tends to be useful for some group, and thus
that social judgment is involved; (b) a creative insight Barron, F. (1955). The disposition towards originality. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 478–485.
‘‘arises from a reintegration of already existing materials Bethune, G. W. (1839). Genius. Casket, 8, 59–69.
or knowledge, but when it is completed it contains ele- Boden (1994). Dimensions of creativity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
ments that are new’’ (p. 311); and (c) it is important to Bruner, J. S. (1962). The conditions of creativity. In H. Gruber,
separate personal from historical creativity (cf. Boden, G. Terrell, & M. Wertheimer (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to
1994; Runco, 1996). Stein also foresaw that environ- creative thinking (pp. 1–30). New York, NY: Atherton.
Cattell, R. B., & Butcher, H. J. (1968). The prediction of achievement
ments never have a completely predictable impact. Their and creativity. New York, NY: Bobbs–Merrill.
influence is always dependent on the individual’s percep- Cropley, A. J. (1967). Creativity. London, UK: Longmans, Green.
tion. This view is usually described as a trait  state inter- Dailey, A., Martindale, C., & Borleum, J. (1997). Creativity, synesthe-
action and was clearly apparent in the early definition of sia, and physiognomic perception. Creativity Research Journal, 10,
press (one of the four strands of research identified by 1–8.
Gabora, L. (2011). An analysis of the blind variation and selective
Rhodes, 1961). Stein was aware of the role of both sensi- retention theory of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 23,
tivity and problem finding ability (‘‘The creative person 155–165.
has a lower threshold, or greater sensitivity, for the gaps Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444–454.
or the lack of closure that exist in the environment’’ Heinelt, G. (1974). Kreative Lehrer=kreative Schüler [Creative
[p. 312]), recognized the benefits of broad attention and teachers=creative students]. Freiburg, Germany: Herder.
Helson, R. (1999). Institute of Personality Assessment and Research.
loose associations (cf. Dailey A. et al., 1997), and in In M. A. Runco & S. Pritzker (Eds.), Encylcopedia of creativity
1953 was already studying domain differences, as is so (pp. 71–79). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
common in creativity research today. Stein reported data Hutchinson, E. D. (1931). Materials for the study of creative thinking.
from artists and chemists and concluded that creativity Psychological Bulletin, 28, 392–410.
benefits from permeable cognitive structures, ‘‘for per- Jackson, P. W., & Messick, S. (1965). The person, the product, and
the response: Conceptual problems in the assessment of creativity.
sons in one area (physics, for example) it may mean Journal of Personality, 33, 309–329.
greater flexibility in the intellectual sphere, while for Kneller, G. F. (1965). Art and science of creativity. New York: Holt,
other. . . the artist, it appears as a greater flexibility in Rinehart & Winston.
the emotional or affective sphere’’ (p. 313). Murray, H. A. (1959). Vicissitudes of creativity. In H. H. Anderson
(Ed.), Creativity and its cultivation (pp. 203–221). New York, NY:
Harper.
CONCLUSIONS Patrick, C. (1935). Creative thought in poets. Archives of Psychology,
26, 1–74.
Although there were hints that creativity requires Patrick, C. (1937). Creative thought in artists. Journal of Psychology, 5,
35–73.
originality and usefulness in publications before 1900, Patrick, C. (1938). Scientific thought. Journal of Psychology, 5, 55–83.
it seems to us that Barron (1955), and especially Stein Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. Phi Delta Kappan, 42,
(1953), should be cited whenever the standard definition 305–310.
is used. Royce, J. (1898). The psychology of invention. Psychological Review,
This does not imply that no further work is needed 5(2), 113–144.
Rubenson, D. L. (1991). On creativity, economics, and baseball.
and that the standard definition is completely adequate. Creativity Research Journal, 4, 205–209.
Important research is being done on several fronts. One Rubenson, D. L., & Runco, M. A. (1992). The psychoeconomic
involves the basis of judgments. The standard definition approach to creativity. New Ideas in Psychology, 10, 131–147.
96 RUNCO AND JAEGER

Rubenson, D. L., & Runco, M. A. (1995). The psychoeconomic view of Simonton, D. K. (2007). The creative process in Picasso’s Guernica
creative work in groups and organizations. Creativity and Innovation sketches: Monotonic improvements versus nonmonotonic variants.
Management, 4, 232–241. Creativity Research Journal, 19, 329–344.
Runco, M. A. (1988). Creativity research: Originality, utility, and Simonton, D. K. (in press). Taking the U.S. Patent Office criteria
integration. Creativity Research Journal, 1(1), 1–7. seriously: A quantitative three-criterion creativity definition and
Runco, M. A. (1996). Personal creativity: Definition and developmental its implications. Creativity Research Journal.
issues. New Directions for Child Development, 72, 3–30. Stein, M. I. (1953). Creativity and culture. Journal of Psychology, 36,
Runco, M. A. (2003). Idea evaluation, divergent thinking, and creativity. 31–322.
In M. A. Runco (Ed.), Critical creative processes (pp. 69–94). Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1991). Short selling investment
Cresskill, NJ: Hampton. theories of creativity? A reply to Runco. Creativity Research
Runco, M. A. (2007a). Chance and intentionality in creative perfor- Journal, 4, 200–202.
mance. Creativity Research Journal, 17, 395–398. VandenBos, G. (Ed.). (2007). APA dictionary of psychology. Washington,
Runco, M. A. (2007b). Creativity: Theories and themes: Research, DC: American Psychological Association.
development, and practice. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Weisberg, R., & Hass, R. (2007). We are all partly right: Comment on
Runco, M. A. (in press). The new science of creativity. Philadelphia, PA: Simonton. Creativity Research Journal, 19, 345–360.
Taylor & Francis.
Copyright of Creativity Research Journal is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.