FIGURE 1 - uploaded by Zorana Ivcevic Pringle
Content may be subject to copyright.
Domains of life-space and personality systems with an emphasis on the distinction between creative behavior and creative potential.
Source publication
Three studies examined content dimensions of creativity. A life-report questionnaire was developed to measure everyday, artistic, and intellectual creativity. Multiple life areas were assessed, including self-presentation, education and work, arts and crafts, culture and media consumption, everyday relations and activities, and memberships in group...
Contexts in source publication
Context 1
... a dinner party and decorating one’s living environment (Richards, Kinney, Benet, & Merzel, 1988; Torrance, 1988). Creativity research should therefore examine both everyday activities and relations and more formal professional or semiprofessional activities. The present studies aim to provide a map of content dimensions of creativity in such diverse behaviors. How should we identify and measure creativity? One possible approach is to survey multiple areas in a person’s life-space (Brackett, 2003; Mayer, Carlsmith, & Chabot, 1998). We define the life-space as different aspects of a person’s identity, behavior, and environment as they may be observed from the outside, such as education, work, and relationships. A conceptual model of the life-space can be used as a guide for identifying behaviors relevant for creativity in multiple domains. Three studies mapped the content dimensions of creativity. Study 1 sampled everyday and artistic creativity in the life-space and tested whether it was possible to distinguish them in a factor analysis. Study 2 revised and extended measurement of everyday and artistic creativity, and added intellectual creativity. Factor analyses identified areas within everyday, artistic, and intellectual creativity and subjected them to a second order factor analysis to identify broader dimensions. These dimensions were then related to gender and the Big Five personality traits. Finally, Study 3 tested whether dimensions of creativity identified in college students could be replicated in professional adults. One common definition states that creativity is the generation of products or behaviors that are both original and appropriate (Barron, 1988; Lubart, 1994). An advantage of this definition is in its ability to incorpo- rate both creative potential and creative behavior. On one hand, creativity refers to the capacity for originality, and on the other hand, it refers to products and behaviors that result from this capacity. Multiple kinds of data can be used to assess creative potential, such as self-reports of creative personality (e.g., Dollinger, Dollinger, & Centeno, 2005) and ability tests (e.g., Torrance, 1988). Several classes of data can also be used to assess creative behavior. Some examples include peer nominations (e.g., McKinnon, 1975), rat- ings of products created in the laboratory (e.g., Amabile, 1996), and citations in biographical dictionaries (e.g., Simonton, 1992). In this article, however, we focus on life-report data (Funder, 2001; Mayer, 2004), which refer to people’s self-reports of their life circumstances and behaviors. As such, life-report data includes biodata (Mael, 1991), act-frequency scales (Buss & Craik, 1981), experience sampling (Larson & Csikszentmihalyi, 1983), and behavior checklists (Paunonen, 2003). This measurement approach has been used before in creativity research—whenever a person has been asked about their creative activities and accomplishments (e.g., Guastello & Shissler, 1994; Hocevar, 1976, 1979; Holland & Nichols, 1964; Holland & Richards, 1965). In this research, life-report questions will ask about frequencies of specific instances of behavior, rather than preferences or behavior tendencies. These questions require minimal interpretation or subjectivity. For example, one question might ask how many times in the previous year a person has visited an art museum and offer response options from zero to four or more times. A similar approach was used in a number of previously developed measures of creative behavior (Hocevar, 1979; Holland & Nichols, 1964; Holland & Richards, 1965). In contrast, a typical self-report inventory question would ask whether a person enjoyed visiting art museums and an item assessing behavioral tendencies would ask respondents to rate whether they visited art museums rarely, occasionally , or frequently . The meaning of people’s responses to these latter type of items is not completely clear; we do not know whether a person who enjoys visiting art museums actually visits them, nor can one be certain what an answer frequently means for different people. Life-space—the sphere targeted by life-report data— includes the entirety of a person’s life (Mayer, 2005). Because this realm is very large, it is useful to define domains and areas within the life-space to ensure that it is sampled properly. At a most general level, it is possible to define four broad domains of the life-space: (a) biological, (b) social settings (i.e., possessions and loca- tions), (c) interactions, and (d) group memberships (Mayer, 2005). Narrower areas can be defined within each domain, such as exchanges with people, materials, and situations in the interactive domain. The life-space model has been successfully applied to the study of personality traits and mental abilities (Brackett, 2003; Brackett, Mayer, & Warner, 2004; Mayer et al., 1998). Interactive and group membership domains of the life- space are most relevant to creativity (see Figure 1). Regarding creativity, the interactive domain refers to original and appropriate behavior in relation to people, materials, and situations (e.g., completing a painting, surprising a significant other with a gift). Many measures have focused on some aspects of the interactive domain (Guastello & Shissler, 1994; Hocevar, 1979; Holland & Nichols, 1964; Holland & Richards, 1965). The domain of group memberships refers to participation in groups and organizations that support, promote, and acknowl- edge creativity (e.g., choir, science honors society). Some- times, creativity has been operationalized in terms of memberships in organizations that indicate achievement in one’s profession (e.g., National Academy of Sciences; Feist & Barron, 2003). At a more global level, creativity has been defined in some research as membership in certain professions (e.g., artists and scientists; Feist, 1998). Creativity is expressed in multiple domains of work and more specialized areas within these domains. The domain of artistic creativity, for instance, includes areas of visual and performing arts (Barron, 1972), music (Deutsch, 1999), and writing (Kaufman, 2002). Theoretical discussions of creativity also assume its existence in the domain of everyday life (Cropley, 1990; Maslow, 1971; Ripple, 1989; Runco, 2004). Everyday creativity concerns original and appropriate expressions in common life settings and interactions, such as mana- ging interactions with significant others. Although much research has focused on creativity in formal domains of work, little attention has been devoted to everyday creativity. Research on implicit theories of creativity showed that lay people recog- nize everyday creativity as distinct from artistic and scientific creativity (Runco & Bahleda, 1986). Similarly, Ivcevic (2007) used an act-frequency approach and showed that lay people are able to identify specific acts performed by everyday and artis- tically creative individuals, and that they are able to reliably judge how prototypical different acts are of respective domains of creativity. Content analysis of prototypical acts showed that everyday creativity referred to self-expression in structuring one’s environment and relationships (e.g., painting furniture, surprising a friend), and artistic creativity concerned creation of works of art and achievement in the arts (e.g., completing a painting, winning an award in an art contest). The sampling of behaviors in the present studies was based on interactive and group membership domains of the life-space and included areas of self- presentation, education and work, arts and crafts, culture and media consumption, everyday relations and activities, and memberships in groups that encourage creativity (Brackett, 2003). Some of these areas concerned generation of creative products (e.g., arts and crafts activities), whereas others referred to expressions of creative interests and values (e.g., culture and media consumption). Previous research has indicated that artistic and intellectual interests were related to creative achievement (Helson, 1999; Root-Bernstein & Root-Bernstein, 2004). Moreover, measures of aesthetic preferences, such as the Barron-Welsh Art Scale, have been used as criteria for creativity (e.g., Dollinger, 2003; Eysenck, 1994). The present studies asked how behavioral measures of such interests and preferences relate to creative behavior in artistic, intellectual, and everyday domains. Everyday activities and interests assessed in these studies concerned creativity in interpersonal relationships (e.g., cheering a friend with a scrapbook of mementos from a vacation), self-expression (e.g., designing one’s own jewelry), and cultural life (e.g., organizing a recital). Artistic creativity assessed production of works of art, presentation of these works in public, and recognition for those works (e.g., completing a painting, winning an art contest). Intellectual creativity assessed one’s activities in pursuit and creation of knowledge in education, science, and technology. Previous research showed that creativity measured by life-report data could be described by one or a small number of broad dimensions. For example, Plucker (1999) reanalyzed three data sets that used creativity checklists, including Holland and Nichols’ (1964) study of high school finalists in the National Merit program, Holland and Richards’ (1965) study of first year students from 24 colleges, and Hocevar’s (1976) study of undergraduates in California. All studies measured creativity by multiple item scales and assessed multiple areas of creativity, such as music, literature, and science. It was possible to extract three factors for the males and two factors for females in the Holland and Nichols (1964) study. These factors were heterogeneous in content for both genders, suggesting a level of generality; for example, science loaded on the same factor with fine arts and music. The other two studies ...
Context 2
... and group membership domains of the lifespace are most relevant to creativity (see Figure 1). Regarding creativity, the interactive domain refers to original and appropriate behavior in relation to people, materials, and situations (e.g., completing a painting, surprising a significant other with a gift). ...
Similar publications
Citations
... A wealth of research has shown that openness to experience predicts creativity-related outcomes, regardless of the domain (e.g., Dollinger, 2011;Erbas & Bas, 2015;Feist, 1998;Ivcevic & Mayer, 2009;Kaufman, 2012). Although extraversion predicts different creativity measures, including divergent thinking tests and selfreported creative behaviors (meta-analysis: Puryear et al., 2017), extraversion and openness tend to be related (e.g., Kaufman, 2012), making extraversion's unique relationships with creativity outcomes less clear (Karwowski & Lebuda, 2016). ...
... This is consistent with previous research on personality traits and creativity across domains, but also adds to it. Existing studies show that openness to experience predicts creativity outcomes across domains (Ivcevic & Mayer, 2009; J. C. Kaufman, 2012), and the present research suggests that this may be primarily due to the ability of openness to predict who are those who are unlikely to be creative. Classification for the other two clusters was between these numbers, with 45.3% success for "I might be creative, but not in math/science" and 44% for "I am creative" cluster. ...
An important step in understanding domain-specific qualities of creativity is determining what patterns exist in self-perceived creativity across domains and how these patterns associate with other characteristics relevant to creativity. In two studies involving high school (Study 1) and undergraduate (Study 2) students, hierarchical cluster analyses revealed four clusters in self-perceived creativity: “I am creative,” “I am not creative,” “I might be creative in math/science,” and “I might be creative, but not in math/science.” In the first study, a discriminant function analysis indicated that the “I am creative” and “I might be creative, but not in math/science” clusters were associated with higher openness and extraversion. In the second study, the “I am creative” and “I might be creative, but not in math/science” clusters were similarly associated with higher openness, extraversion, creative self-efficacy, and self-esteem, whereas lower agreeableness and conscientiousness were associated with the “I am creative” and “I might be creative in math/science” clusters. These findings suggest that clusters of self-perceived creativity are described by both overall magnitude (low vs. high) and domain (math/science vs. other domains), and relative associations with different personal characteristics vary across these clusters.
... A highly open person is likely to show preference for a variety of activities rather than adhering to a familiar strict routine. Almost all the reviewed studies reported a positive and significant association between openness to experience and creativity (Sung & Choi, 2009;Ivcevic & Mayer, 2009;Hoseinifar et al., 2011;Kaspi-Baruch, 2017;Zare & Flinchbaugh, 2019;Jirásek & Sudzina, 2020). Nevertheless, Esfahani et al. (2012) reported no significant effect of openness to experience on creativity. ...
... From the reviewed literature, research findings on the influence of the Big Five personality traits on creativity in creative achievement (Kaufman et al., 2016), lifestyle, performing arts/artistic creativity, intellectual creativity (Ivcevic & Mayer, 2009), scientific, daily creativity (Batey & Furnham, 2006), and especially creativity in general (Sung & Choi, 2009;Kaspi-Baruch, 2017;Zare & Flinchbaugh, 2019;Jirásek & Sudzina, 2020;Sarma & Borooah, 2021), are conflicting. Also, the lack of research findings on the influence of the Big Five personality factors on entrepreneurial service creativity in the hotel industry in Bayelsa State necessitates the present study. ...
The study explored the big-five personality factors of managers and entrepreneurial service creativity of hotels in Yenagoa metropolis, Bayelsa State. A cross-sectional survey design was applied while a sample 224 managers was selected through a simple random sampling procedure. A structured questionnaire was employed for data collection after the determination of reliability and validity of the measurement model through the application of Cronbach alpha, composite reliability, average variance extracted, construct validity. The data were analyzed through Partial Least Square regression with structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM). The results showed that the big-five personality factors of openness to experience, conscientiousness, neuroticism of managers had a positive and significant effect on entrepreneurial creativity of hotels, extraversion of managers had a positive but no significant effect on entrepreneurial creativity while agreeableness of managers had a negative and no significant effect on entrepreneurial creativity of hotels. From the findings of the study, we concluded that big-five personality factors of managers are crucial to the entrepreneurial creativity of hotels. We recommended that hoteliers should be concerned about the personality of managers appointed to oversee their hospitality firms to ensure entrepreneurial service creativity to attain outstanding patronage from guests and the clientele.
... Second, we only assessed creative achievement in the broad art and science domains; we did not measure other domains or forms of creative achievement (e.g., mechanical, humanities, business; Ivcevic & Mayer, 2009;Kaufman, 2012Kaufman, , 2013. Given that different personality traits may predict different types of creative achievement (Feist, 1998;Ivcevic & Mayer, 2006), it would be important to examine whether our results hold for creative achievement in other domains. ...
The present study examines two self-regulation traits, grit and curiosity, in predicting creative achievement in an adult sample (N = 522). Grit has been related to achievement in various domains, and although prior empirical work failed to find associations with everyday creative activities in adolescent and young adult samples, theoretically it is relevant to long-term creative achievement (which requires persistence). Curiosity supports creative achievement through positive judgments of novelty and an intrinsic motivation to approach instead of avoid uncertainty, and both novelty and uncertainty are central to the creative process. Results showed that the perseverance dimension of grit positively predicted creative achievement, whereas the consistency of interests dimension was negatively related to creative achievement. Additionally, five curiosity dimensions predicted creative achievement above grit. In particular, thrill seeking predicted creative achievement in both art and science; deprivation sensitivity positively predicted creative achievement in art. Our research suggests that, instead of a narrow focus on consistency of interest, creative achievement benefits from curiosity.
... The results suggest some evidence in this direction, indicating that humans who excel at producing novel ideas before adopting generative AI are evaluated most favorably after adoption if they successfully explore the idea space, implying that ability to manipulate novel concepts and curate artworks based on coherence are relevant skills when using text-to-image AI. This aligns with prior research which suggest that creative individuals are particularly adept at discerning which ideas are most meaningful (20), reflecting a refined sensitivity to the artistic coherence of artifacts (21). Furthermore, all artists, regardless of their ability to produce novel visual features without generative AI, appear to be evaluated more favorably if they can capably explore more novel ideas. ...
Recent artificial intelligence (AI) tools have demonstrated the ability to produce outputs traditionally considered creative. One such system is text-to-image generative AI (e.g. Midjourney, Stable Diffusion, DALL-E), which automates humans’ artistic execution to generate digital artworks. Utilizing a dataset of over 4 million artworks from more than 50,000 unique users, our research shows that over time, text-to-image AI significantly enhances human creative productivity by 25% and increases the value as measured by the likelihood of receiving a favorite per view by 50%. While peak artwork Content Novelty, defined as focal subject matter and relations, increases over time, average Content Novelty declines, suggesting an expanding but inefficient idea space. Additionally, there is a consistent reduction in both peak and average Visual Novelty, captured by pixel-level stylistic elements. Importantly, AI-assisted artists who can successfully explore more novel ideas, regardless of their prior originality, may produce artworks that their peers evaluate more favorably. Lastly, AI adoption decreased value capture (favorites earned) concentration among adopters. The results suggest that ideation and filtering are likely necessary skills in the text-to-image process, thus giving rise to “generative synesthesia”—the harmonious blending of human exploration and AI exploitation to discover new creative workflows.
... Joy Paul Guilford (1897Guilford ( -1987, an American psychologist, who has pioneered creativity research, asserts that everyone can show remarkable signs of creativity (and intelligence) in various contexts. Because a creative act is considered an instance of learning (Guilford, 1950) and because one can learn in multiple ways and contexts, creativity takes different shapes and forms such as everyday creativity, artistic creativity and intellectual creativity (Ivcevic & Mayer, 2009). Likewise, creativity manifests itself in a wide range of situations, from daily problem-solving at work and leisure to creative breakthroughs that may change the course of a particular domain. ...
Chapter 1 outlines the rationale for the book The Creative Tourist, and introduces globalisation and modernity as the broad contexts within which creative tourist experiences take place. Here, we articulate our understanding of what creative tourism is and suggest that this participatory form of cultural tourism represents a regenerative alternative to mass cultural tourism. The complex and fluid concept of creativity is then discussed showing the multiple meanings and understandings of creativity across regions and academic disciplines. We conclude this chapter by acknowledging the disciplinary knowledge and the philosophical movements that have inspired our scholarly endeavour.
... There is no solid agreement on the best structure of creative domains. Studies investigating self-reported creative behavior and abilities often result in different numbers and categories of domains (Ivcevic & Mayer, 2009;Kaufman, 2012;Diedrich et al., 2018;Benedek et al., 2019;Ozdemir, 2021;Ozturk, 2023), many of which are often intellectual. It includes aspects of STEM-related and artistic (including visual, writing, and performance) creativity. ...
The aim of this study is to examine the creativity of university students studying in the field of fine arts in terms of demographic and school factors. In this context, the Kaufman creativity areas of the participant students were examined through a comparative approach on the basis of the comparative relational survey research model. The study group of this research consists of 241 Fine Arts Faculty students. Kaufman Creativity Fields Scale was used to collect research data. According to the analysis of the data, the academic creativity of the participating students was low, their mechanical creativity was at a medium level, and their artistic creativity was at a high level. In addition, significant differences were found in the creativity areas and levels of the students according to gender, department type, class and achievement levels. It was observed in the research that the academic creativity of the participating students was low. In this context, activities and practices for students' skills such as research, problem solving, and using the scientific method in original processes can be included in all departments of the relevant faculties.
... We also know much about the creative products and achievements -products themselves are reliably judged as creative by experts or quasi-experts (Amabile, 1996;Kaufman, Baer, Cole, & Sexton, 2008;Kaufman, Baer, Cropley, Reiter-Palmon, & Sinnett, 2013) and what is considered creative shows both similarities and differences across cultures (Lan & Kaufman, 2012;Niu & Kaufman, 2013;Paletz & Peng, 2008;Paletz, Peng, & Li, 2011). Similarly, decades of research on creative personality have shown that openness to experience is a key trait of creative potential across domains (Feist, 1998;Ivcevic & Mayer, 2009;Puryear et al., 2017). Creativity scholars have argued theoretically that different aspects of creativity, such as creative thinking and creative achievement, are conceptually different (Ivcevic, 2022;Reiter-Palmon & Schoenbeck, 2020) and the differences in the nature of these aspects of creativity have been empirically demonstrated (e.g., Puryear, Kettler, & Rinn, 2017). ...
... Much existing research focused on the beginning and the end of the creative process, such as one's ability to come up with many ideas (e.g., the relationship between divergent thinking and intelligence: Kim, 2005Kim, , 2008 brain dynamics in creative idea generation; Beaty, Benedek, Silvia, & Schacter, 2016;Benedek et al., 2014), the nature of creative products (e.g., levels of creative contributions: Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009;Sternberg, 1999), and personality attributes of creative individuals (e.g., identifying openness to experience as the key trait in creativity: Feist, 1998;Ivcevic & Mayer, 2009;Kaufman, 2013;Puryear et al., 2018). Recently, more focus on the creative process has emerged, from interview studies of doing and undoing across domains Bourgeois-Bougrine et al., 2014;Glăveanu et al., 2013) and new models of the creative process (De Dreu, Bass, & Nijstad, 2008;Nijstad, De Dreu, Rietzschel, & Baas, 2010). ...
How are creative ideas transformed into creative behavior, products, and achievements? We posit that this transformation is facilitated by self-regulation of creativity. The present study develops a self-report scale and provides initial evidence of validity in assessing two major aspects of self regulation of creativity: expectations about the creative process before the task and strategies of regulation during the creative task. Cross-validated factor analyses identified three dimensions of expectations: expecting a nonlinear process, importance of task completion, and expecting criticism, and four dimensions of regulation strategies during the creative process: adjusting approach, planning, fragile regulation, and embracing risk. Convergent and discriminant validity was supported in relation to measures of general self-regulation, personality, well-being, and motivation. Finally, we provide support for the predictive validity of self-regulation of creativity scales for creative achievement beyond openness to experience. We discuss the need for research on the
nature of the process of transforming and realizing creative ideas.
... Artists and scientists, for instance, tend to be receptive and motivated, but artists may also be unruly and independent [79], while scientists can be domineering and conceited. For university students (late adolescents/young adults) who self-report creative behaviors in the daily, performing arts, and intellectual domains have a varied association with personality characteristics [84]. This is the reason why this study is focused on creativity traits in self-regulated learning primarily in arts education. ...
Contemporary research indicates that student creativity is crucial to the success of arts education. Self-regulated learning has become one of educational psychology’s most critical research areas. However, there is limited research on creativity in arts education in self-regulated learning. Therefore, this study aims to define the creativity characteristics that determine the quality of students’ work. This study implemented a creative competition in painting and composition for first-year undergraduates. It was conducted at a Chinese university with the participation of 178 first-year students aged 18 to 26. It evaluated the characteristics of creativity during the three main phases of the task: planning, execution, and completion. We investigated the subject by employing semi-open questionnaires (n = 178) and using the content analysis method and quantitative analysis. According to the competition results, the students with the highest scores in flow, inspiration, and idea generation in the performance phase had the best quality work. In the forethought phase, analogical thinking and idea generation worked best for most students, while in the performance phase, flow sense, idea generation, and idea manipulation worked best. Data on creativity characteristics at different work phases and final quality might adequately guide and organize educational procedures. These findings can serve as a theoretical foundation for quantifying the creativity phase in self-regulated learning and offer arts educators a reference for creativity instruction.
... E, é no cotidiano da comunidade que o turismo criativo busca a convergência entre a criatividade e o turismo, fornecendo uma base que servirá de inspiração para o envolvimento ativo do turistaartesanato; refinamento cultural; criatividade auto expressiva; criatividade auto pessoal e consumo sofisticado de mídia. Os territórios criativos tem a possibilidade de expressar suas singularidades reivindicando e manifestando diferenças e diversidades (Ivcevic & Mayer, 2009;Tan et al., 2013;Emmendoerfe & Ashton, 2014). ...
O objetivo deste trabalho foi fortalecer os conceitos de Turismo de Base Comunitária, estabelecendo uma interlocução com o conceito de Turismo Criativo. Para isso, foi discutida a utilização de nichos de mercado como segmentos de turismo, e realizada uma análise do uso de estratégias do Turismo Criativo pela gestão de Turismo de Base Comunitária como forma de incrementar os serviços turísticos oferecidos em sua localidade. O estudo resultou de uma revisão não sistemática de literatura baseada em revisões recentes e obras seminais dos conceitos analisados, utilizando buscas de termos chave na base de dados Capes. O Turismo de Base Comunitária surge da ideia de desenvolver um Turismo de Base Local, em que a população residente deve ser a principal beneficiada, planejando, conduzindo e mantendo a prática turística dentro de seu território. Como resultado do levantamento bibliográfico, o estudo apresenta alguns estudos de caso, presentes na literatura, em que comunidades, com gestão do Turismo de Base Comunitária, tem utilizado princípios da Economia criativa para incrementar os serviços oferecidos, concluindo que o chamado turismo criativo pode ser uma opção para este fim.
... Artists and scientists, for instance, tend to be receptive and motivated, but artists may also be unruly and independent, while scientists can be domineering and conceited. University students (late adolescents/young adults) who self-report creative behaviors in the daily, performing arts, and intellectual domains have a varied association with personality characteristics [84]. This is the reason why this study is focused on creativity traits in self-regulated learning primarily in arts education. ...
Self-regulated Learning has become one of educational psychology's most critical research areas. Contemporary research indicates that student creativity is crucial to the success of arts education. However, there is limited research on creativity in arts education in Self-regulated Learning. Therefore, this study aims to define the creativity characteristics that determine the quality of students’ work. This study implemented a creative competition in painting and composition for first-year undergraduates. It evaluated the characteristics of creativity during the three main phases of the task: planning, execution, and completion. We discovered through semi-open questionnaires (n=178)，and using the content analysis method. According to the competition results, the students with the highest scores in Flow, Inspiration, and Idea Generation in the Performance phase had the best quality work. In the Forethought phase, Analogical Thinking and Idea Generation worked best for most students, while in the Performance phase, Flow Sense, Idea Generation, and Idea Manipulation worked best.Data on creativity characteristics at different work phases and final quality might adequately guide and organize educational procedures. These findings can serve as a theoretical foundation for quantifying the creativity phase in Self-regulated Learning and offer arts educators a reference for creativity instruction.
