The Role of Problem Construction in Creative Production

This paper provides an overview of theory and research regarding problem construction and identification. Specifically, the paper reviews a theoretical model of processes associated with problem construction and empirical evidence in relation to the model. Finally, the paper reviews the literature on team problem construction

Predicting Leadership Activities: The Role of Flexibility

This paper investigated the role of flexibility in predicting adolescent leadership activities among 186 undergraduate students. Two measures of flexibility, behavioral flexibility and cognitive flexibility, were developed and entered in a regression equation, after social skills and academic ability. The results suggest that behavioral and cognitive flexibility are distinct constructs and that both contribute uniquely to the prediction of leadership above and beyond social skills and academic ability

Are the Outcomes of Creativity Always Positive?

The paper by Kaufman (2018) calls for more research on the consequences of creativity. While we typically think about the positive consequences of creativity, it is important to understand that creativity can have negative, both intended and unintended consequences. In this commentary, I review the nascent literature on negative and malevolent creativity, and specifically discuss concerns regarding measurement. Having a consistent way to evaluate and measure negative creativity is critical to our understanding and future research

Can We Really Have An Integrative Theory of Creativity? The Case of Creative Cognition

In this commentary to Glăveanu (2014), I address one specific issue raised – that of the need for a grand or unifying theory of creativity. I discuss whether our understanding of creative cognition has progressed sufficiently to allow for the development of, or inclusion in, a grand theory of creativity. Specifically, I argue that there are many gaps in our understanding of two major processes, problem identification and construction and idea evaluation and choice. I further provide some suggestions for how we can move the field forward on these individual aspects, and still strive for integration

The Effect of Problem Construction on Team Process and Creativity

Although research on the benefits of problem construction within the creative process is expanding, research on team problem construction is limited. This study investigates the cognitive process of problem construction and identification at the team level through an experimental design. Furthermore, this study explores team social processes in relation to problem construction instructions. Using student teams solving a real-world problem, the results of this study revealed that teams that engaged in problem construction and identification generated more original ideas than teams that did not engage in such processes. Moreover, higher satisfaction and lower conflict was observed among groups that engaged in problem construction compared to groups that did not engage in problem construction. These findings highlight the utility of problem construction for teams engaging in creative problem-solving

The Effect of Problem Construction on Team Process and Creativity

Although research on the benefits of problem construction within the creative process is expanding, research on team problem construction is limited. This study investigates the cognitive process of problem construction and identification at the team level through an experimental design. Furthermore, this study explores team social processes in relation to problem construction instructions. Using student teams solving a real-world problem, the results of this study revealed that teams that engaged in problem construction and identification generated more original ideas than teams that did not engage in such processes. Moreover, higher satisfaction and lower conflict was observed among groups that engaged in problem construction compared to groups that did not engage in problem construction. These findings highlight the utility of problem construction for teams engaging in creative problem-solving

Creative self-efficacy as mediator between creative mindsets and creative problem-solving

An emerging area of research is how one\u27s mindset regarding the fixedness and malleability of creative ability relates to creative performance. Malleable creative mindsets tend to be positively related to creativity while fixed mindsets often show a negative association. Similarly, creative self-efficacy, or one\u27s beliefs that they have the capacity to be creative, is also related to creative performance and creative mindsets. While previous studies tested the direct relationship between mindsets and creativity, this study tested creative self-efficacy in this relationship. A total of 152 students from a Midwestern university participated in the study. They were provided with measures of creative self-efficacy, creative mindsets, and creative problem-solving. Solutions were assessed in terms of quality and originality. Results indicated that both malleable creative mindsets and creative self-efficacy were positively related to solution quality and originality while fixed creative mindsets were negatively related. Mediation analysis using Preacher and Hayes\u27 (2004) bootstrapping macro showed that creative self-efficacy mediated the relationship between malleable mindsets and quality and originality as well as the relationship between fixed mindsets and quality and originality. This research advances the study of creativity by demonstrating that creative self-efficacy is an important mechanism through which creative mindsets relate to creative performance

Creativity assessment: Pitfalls, solutions, and standards

This is an introduction to the special issue \u27Creativity Assessment: Pitfalls, Solutions, and Standards.\u27 This special issue (SI) provides a much-needed critical review of current practice in creativity assessment and existing measures, outlining common pitfalls, while suggesting important guidelines and standards for best practice in creativity research and directions for the field. After a general overview of common assessment practice in the field (Snyder, Hammond, Grohman, & Katz-Buonincontro, 2019), several contributions in this SI address challenges and new developments regarding the measurement of divergent thinking (Acar & Runco, 2019; Reiter-Palmon, Forthmann, & Barbot, 2019), consensual assessment technique and subjective ratings (Cseh & Jeffries, 2019; Myszkowski & Storme, 2019; Primi, Silvia, Benedek, & Jauk, 2019), and self-report methodology (Kaufman, 2019). Recent developments and methodological recommendations relevant to creativity assessment on topics including neuroscience of creativity methods (Benedek, Christensen, Fink, & Beaty, 2019), experience sampling (Cotter & Silvia, 2019), developmental methods (Barbot, 2019), selfbeliefs research (Karwowski, Han, & Beghetto, 2019), and crosscultural studies of creativity (Glaveanu, 2019) are also represented. The SI concludes with a general commentary on these contributions, outlining recommendations for best practice in creativity assessment (Barbot, Hass, & Reiter-Palmon, 2019)

Facilitating creativity in interdisciplinary design teams using cognitive processes: A review

Interdisciplinary, or cross-functional, teams have become quite common for engineering and design. Many of today’s scientific breakthroughs occur in interdisciplinary teams, as the increasingly complex problems facing society often cannot be addressed by single disciplines alone. However, fostering creative and productive collaboration in interdisciplinary teams is no easy challenge. First, leading creative teamwork is difficult by itself. Second, many of the factors that impede teams and teamwork in general are exacerbated in interdisciplinary teams as a result of differences between team members. In this paper, we will review the team creativity psychology and management literature, and discuss how cognitive processes that facilitate creativity can be used by engineering and design teams. Specifically, past research has shown problem construction that allows teams to develop a structure to guide solving ambiguous problems. Further, problem construction allows teams to develop a shared understanding of the problem which aids in later processes. While there is significant research on idea generation, results suggest that teams may not be better at this than individuals. In this review, we discuss how idea generation in teams can mitigate some of the issues that lead to this effect. Finally, team research has only recently began to determine what factors influence idea evaluation and selection for implementation

The Effect of Regulatory Focus on Idea Generation and Idea Evaluation

Regulatory focus, an individual difference characteristic, has been linked to decision making, such that those with a promotion focus show more risk taking and flexibility whereas those with a prevention focus are risk averse and more rigid. The relationship between regulatory focus and creativity has also been investigated, with similar results. However, the focus of these efforts has been on the idea generation phase (e.g., Friedman & Forster, 2001; Lam & Chiu, 2002). This study suggests that the influence of regulatory focus on creativity operates differently for the idea evaluation phase than with the idea generation phase. Furthermore, there are differential effects of promotion and prevention focus depending on the aspect of the idea that is being evaluated