And now for something completely different? The impact of group membership on perceptions of creativity

Abstract

A wealth of historical, cultural and biographical evidence points to the fact that there is considerable variation in different people's judgements of creative products. What is creative to one person is deviant to another, and creative efforts often fail to be given the enthusiastic reception that their creators anticipate and think they deserve. Unpacking the roots of these discrepancies, this paper develops an analysis of creativity that is informed by the social identity approach. This analysis is supported by a review of previous research that points to the way in which perceptions of creativity are structured by both selfcategorization and social norms (and their interaction). Further support for the analysis is provided by two experiments (Ns =100,125) which support the hypothesis that ingroup products are perceived to be more creative than those of outgroups independently of other factors with which group membership is typically correlated in the world at large (e.g., quality). The studies also indicate that this pattern is not simply a manifestation of generic ingroup bias since judgements of creativity diverge from those of both likeability (Exp. 1) and beauty (Exp. 2). The theoretical and practical significance of these findings is discussed with particular reference to innovation resistance and the "not invented here" syndrome.

Creativity’s Need for Relevance in Research and Real Life: Let’s Set a New Agenda for Positive Outcomes

“…What that can mean is that group members are then more likely to be creative in the same type of way as their group and stick to the established social norms (Adarves-Yorno, Postmes, & Haslam, 2007). Further, people who are part of the group are rated as more creative than non-group members (Adarves-Yorno, Haslam, & Postmes, 2008;S. A. Haslam, Adarves-Yorno, Postmes, & Jans, 2013).…”

From Van Gogh to Lady Gaga: Artist eccentricity increases perceived artistic skill and art appreciation

“…For example, Schimmel and Förster () found that a high temporal distance prime enhanced the acceptance of unconventional art, likely due to inclusive categorization eminent to high level construals that people formed of these targets under conditions of psychological distance (e.g., Liberman & Trope, ). Moreover, research by Adarves‐Yorno, Postmes, and Alexander Haslam (); Adarves‐Yorno, Alexander Haslam, and Postmes () evidences that evaluations of creativity are in part shaped by ingroup norms to which the creative expressions need to conform. Thus, people's evaluations of the creative work of others are partly shaped by situational factors, reflecting that perceptions of creativity are indeed malleable by factors unrelated to the creative process.…”

Defining Creativity with Discovery

“…novelty (Boden, 2004;Epstein, 1991;Perkins 1994;Smith, 2005) and whether social values and recognition biases interfere with attributions of creativity (Adarves-Yorno, Postmes and Haslam, 2006;Adarves-Yorno, Haslam and Postmes, 2008;Charyton, Basham and Elliot, 2008;Corazza, 2016;Kasof, 1995;Ludwig, 1995;Runco, 1995).…”

“…Problems within three concepts of the standard definition have been identified: the nature of novelty, the role of effectiveness, whether defined through adaptivity or values, and whether recognition is necessary to the existence of creativity. These problems have received significant attention during seven decades of research but remain unresolved (Adarves-Yorno, Haslam and Postmes, 2008;Boden, 2004;Kasof, 1995; Kaufman and Baer, 2012;Runco and Jaeger, 2012;Stein, 1974;). Starting with novelty, there are two philosophical conundrums.…”

“…Such claims render creativity as having no recognition-independent criteria, even in abstraction. A variety of rater biases have been found in the laboratory, in organisational contexts, and across cultures (Kasof, 1995;Hong and Lee, 2015;Hoelscher and Schubert, 2015) and it is known that judgement of creative worth can be influenced by cultural environment, personal biases, through membership of social groups, such as gender, or class, and personal background or status (Adarves-Yorno, Haslam and Postmes, 2008;Charyton, Basham and Elliott, 2008;Kaufman et al 2010;Lau, Li, and Chu, 2004;Rocavert, 2016;Sayer 2005;Silvia, 2008). Given these issues, relying on knowledgable judges to identify creativity can be problematic as it increases the chances of a success bias in theory, as there could be more ways to achieve creative outputs than are capable of being recognised (Rocavert, 2016;Runco, 2003).…”