Lay Theories of Creativity

Abstract

Creativity is considered to be one of humanity's most complex and important behaviors, and its effects are widespread. Over time, creativity has allowed us to create art, develop computers, and cure illnesses. In addition to its importance in science and the arts (Feist & Gorman, 1998;Kaufman, 2002;Mackinnon, 1962), the significance of creativity has also been recognized in daily life problem-solving (Cropley, 1990) and in successful adaptation to change (Cropley, 1990;Reiter-Palmon, Mumford, & Threlfall, 1998). Moreover, creativity helps us to sustain and promote our well being (Hirt, Devers, & McCrea, 2008), it allows us to gain power (Sligte, De Dreu, & Nijstad, 2011), it makes us more attractive mating partners (Griskevicius, Cialdini, & Kenrick, 2006), and it is core to successful innovation (Amabile, 1996). Due to the crucial role of creativity in innovation, creativity has become a key concern for most organizations and businesses (Runco, 2004), and some scholars even refer to today's economy as a creative economy (Florida, 2002;Howkins, 2002).Not only in our current society, but throughout the history of mankind, creativity has been of great appeal and importance to people (Mithen, 1998). Therefore, it is not surprising that people strive to understand creativity, and that they develop lay theories to do so. Lay theories are the informal theories and beliefs that lay people hold about a phenomenon and its causes or consequences (e.g., Furnham, 1988). Lay theories are usually not based on scientific research or a systematic analysis of the phenomenon in question (although some lay theories may be partly informed by such research), but rather take the shape of stereotypes and everyday beliefs

Ideas are cheap: When and why adults value labor over ideas.

“…The current work might also corroborate research on people’s tendency to mystify creativity (Ritter & Rietzschel, 2017). However, in trying to increase awareness of the idea-generation process as an effortful and systematic activity, the present findings might offer some insights for practitioners in the domain of education and training to overcome this tendency.…”

“…Whereas children do not seem to think so (Li et al, 2013), the current research suggests that adults do. Despite the fact that people might generally value creativity (Ritter & Rietzschel, 2017), the current set of studies ( k = 7; N = 1,463) suggests that adults seem to associate labor with greater observable effort, which in turn helps explain why adults value labor over ideas. Specifically, when people learn that one person contributed the idea to make something, whereas another person contributed labor to make it, the laborer is appreciated substantially more than the idea giver.…”

“…Contributions and Implications Lay conceptions of creativity. The current account of effort-based depreciation of ideas might also relate to peopleÕs tendency to mystify the creative process and creativity more broadly (Baas, Koch, Nijstad, & De Dreu, 2015; see Ritter & Rietzschel, 2017, for an overview). Particularly, precisely because perceivers cannot observe mental effort (i.e., generation of a creative idea) as much as they can observe physical effort (i.e., labor when executing an idea), lay people may downplay the role of effort in the creative process.…”

The users' perspective on how creativity techniques help in the idea generation process—A repertory grid study

“…Further, our results provide insights about productive group work in creativity sessions. While the literature shows that nominal groups without communication generate more ideas than communicating groups (Diehl & Stroebe, 1991; Ritter & Rietzschel, 2017), this study suggests that users, or at least students, prefer communication and discussion in groups, as previously assumed (Rickards, 1994). From the inexperienced users' perspective, an ideal group work belongs to the most helpful aspects of idea generation workshops and consists of open group discussions and the removal of barriers instead of subjective, critical judgements or the exclusion of team members.…”

Folk Theories of Artifact Creation: How Intuitions About Human Labor Influence the Value of Artifacts

“…One study found that artists tend to be animalized—viewed as high in human nature qualities (e.g., in touch with their inner creativity), but low in uniquely human qualities (e.g., impulse control; Loughnan & Haslam, 2007 ). Other research has found that “creative genius” is seen as something natural, essential and unlearnable, that is both uniquely human (i.e., not possessed by animals) and central to human nature (i.e., not possessed by robots; Ritter & Rietzschel, 2017 ). Artists may also be associated with the stereotype of the “mad genius,” which has been problematized for associating creativity with psychopathology ( Ritter & Rietzschel, 2017 ; Schlesinger, 2009 ).…”