What is creativity? Is it that burning feeling that you have when you must break and bend the known rules and invest your energy in making a mark on the world, be it an art piece or maybe just something a little bit more practical that helps you enjoy your life more? Is it that sudden burst of an original idea in your mental landscape? Is it the capacity to reinvent, reorganize or reinterpret the data in a single field of study or is it linking information between several? It is all that and more, as we will discover when learning about the different levels of creativity distinguished by Irving A. Taylor.
But first, we dedicate the introductory part of this article to following the footsteps of the concept of creativity that were made in the scientific world of psychology by presenting a short history of the distinct points of view on its origin and characteristics.
Short History of Creativity
The word creativity has its origin in the Latin creare which means to make, to conceive, to develop, to produce. It was introduced in the psychological vocabulary by American psychologist Gordon Allport (1937) (buy his books from Amazon) and it is replacing the old terms of innovative spirit, inventivity, talent.
We owe the first attempt at studying it using scientific grounds to the work of English savant Francis Galton, Hereditary Genius (1869). Researching the genealogical tree of a large number of famous families which gave the world many generations of highly creative personalities, Galton reaches the conclusion that heredity is the determinant factor of the creative force and that genius people are endowed with exceptional intellectual aptitudes.
The year of 1950 is considered to be the beginning of the researched psychological studies on creativity. At the American Psychology Association (APA) Congress, J.P. Guilford (buy his books from Amazon) drew attention to the scarcity of studies related to creativity and proposed several directions of research involving this human personality dimension. Following this impulse, the diverse creativity problematic entered the research programs of the great majority of American and European universities.
In the 1960s and 1970s we witness an outburst of the number of papers reserved to study the problem of creativity. In 1970, the Czech psychologist J. Hlavsa inventoried no less than 2419 titles and the 1999 edition of Creativity Encyclopaedia mentions over 10000 papers written with regard to creativity during the time interval between the years 1960 and 1998.
Two Major Opposing Views
The close examination of the definitions given to creativity reveals that novelty, originality, ingeniosity and theoretical or practical values represent essential features of the creative activity. A lack of consensus in the approach of creativity could be caused by the fact that for a long time it was thought to be only a privilege of the genius, of a single minority, and, thus, the research was conducted only towards the lives and activities of the highly creative personalities.
A scientific research lead by British psychologist M. Freya in the 1990s showed that over 70% of the interviewed professors (over 1000 in total) believed creativity to be a gift reserved only for a few.
The American point of view, on the other hand, is in stark contrast: creativity is perceived as an ability that can be developed by the vast majority of individuals. J.P. Guilford believed that the creativity phenomenon represents a general human characteristic and that everyone can be placed on different levels of a continuum scale of creativity.
Levels of Creativity
Irving .A. Taylor goes even further than Guilford and suggests that we can distinguish between five different levels of creativity:
These are unfettered ideas, generally primitive, that emerge without the benefit of any guidelines, physical laws, or other restrictions. You might think of expressive creativity as a child using a box of multi-colored crayons to draw something.
In this stage, we use rules and physical laws to constrain our thinking, with little expressive spontaneity. Think of this stage as “practicing.” Things that emerge may be new to you, but may already be known to the world.
In this stage, we develop the ability to creatively combine existing technical concepts using prior design solutions to create new designs. Examples might be to use an old item in a new way.
Emergent creativity is the highest creative level. It involves rejecting current physical laws, principals, and constraints, and forming completely new theories about how the world works. This often results in a ground-breaking idea. Few people achieve this level.
Creativity seems to be a highly controversial human capacity and its processes are likely connected to cognitive and emotional attributes, be them conscious or unconscious. The value of its results can resonate in the single life of the inventor or it can change the course of action for the entire humanity. Either way, we cannot underestimate its importance in the act of designing the future, so why not learn the psychological mechanisms behind the process and start developing our creative skills right now?
Anima and animus are gender specific archetypal structures in the collective unconscious that are compensatory to conscious gender identity.
One of the most complex and least understood features of his theory, the idea of a contrasexual archetype, developed out of Jung’s desire to conceptualize the important complementary poles in human psychological functioning. From his experiences of the emotional power of projection in his patients and in himself, he conceived first of the anima as a numinous figure in a man’s unconscious.
Emotion represents a complex of affective states that implies conscious or unconscious experiences which lead to psychological responses that either inhibit or facilitate the motivation of behaviour.
Emotions exert an incredibly powerful force on human behavior. Strong emotions can cause you to take actions you might not normally perform or to avoid situations you enjoy. Why exactly do we have emotions? What causes us to have these feelings?
Inspired by the sociocognitive approaches to learning, Rolland Viau proposes an innovative motivation model in the context of acquiring information and completing goals.
Although the model has been initially designed for the learning student, its structures can be just as easily and successfully applied to any situation where an individual is faced with a challenge and a need to be completing a goal.
Puer aeternus. Latin for “eternal child,” used in mythology to designate a child-god who is forever young; psychologically it refers to an older man whose emotional life has remained at an adolescent level, usually coupled with too great a dependence on the mother.
The shadow of the puer is the senex (Latin for old man), associated with the god Cronus—disciplined, controlled, responsible, rational, ordered. Conversely, the shadow of the senex is the puer, related to Hermes or Dionysus—unbounded instinct, disorder, intoxication, whimsy. Like all archetypes, the puer is bipolar, exhibiting both a “positive” and a “negative” aspect.
During the 1970′, at Geneva, a new perspective on cognitive development has begun to emerge. The self-defined school of socio-genetical psychology advanced theories that represented a challenge addressed to the spirit of genetical epistemology.
Willem Doise, Gabriel Mugny and Jean Claude Deschamp, to name but a few of the representatives, declare that social interactions constitute the privileged setting which gives birth to the intellectual acquisitions of the child. There is a direct cause and effect link between social interaction and individual cognitive development.
Abraham H. Maslow felt as though conditioning theories did not adequately capture the complexity of human behavior. In a 1943 paper called A Theory of Human Motivation, Maslow presented the idea that human actions are directed toward goal attainment. Any given behavior could satisfy several functions at the same time; for instance, going to a bar could satisfy one’s needs for self-esteem and for social interaction. His theory later became known as the human hierarchy of needs.