User:MGBlackmore27/sandbox

The Social Psychology of Creativity

Creativity is the "psychological phenomenon where someone produces an idea or product that is simultaneously novel and useful" (Simonton, 2012). The study of creativity is an invaluable research field that emphasises the importance of creativity in improving individual quality of life, enhancing occupational productivity, and advancing human knowledge (Moran, 2010). Extensive research in this field has aimed to examine the creative process to understand how we can foster an innovative environment in various contexts. Previously, the field of research was populated with trait-based theories and cognitive theories, all suggesting that creativity was a characteristic of individuals. However, very little research has considered creativity as a process of social influence and our external environment. Recent research has begun considering the role of social psychology and the notion that it plays vital, if not more significant, role than other factors previously considered. This article will examine the most prominent influences on creativity, including social support, the environment, culture, social comparison theory, and their critics. Various researchers have emphasised that studying creativity with a social perspective is not only logical, as most creativity occurs in the presence of other social groups, but a highly reliable and valid explanation (Simonton, 2012). Thus, if research aims to facilitate high levels of creativity, it appears logical to do so with a social approach that focuses on a whole society and the individual within it.

Historical perspectives- J.P Guilford (1897-1987)

Guilford's model of intellect, utilised to formulate his influential theories of creativity.

The psychological study of creativity first emerged in the 1950s with the leading figure of J.P. Guilford. As one of the most influential researchers on creativity, Guilford distinguished between the types of creativity, creative achievement, and creative potential (Guilford, 2017). Guilford further defined the nature of creativity as universal, focusing on the traits that make some innovative and others not (Guilford and Vaughan, 1962). Guilford's research into creativity offered a promising approach to the systematic and scientific study of creativity, prompting the continuation of this research field. At the end of his research career, Guilford altered the trajectory of creativity research by suggesting we look further into the social psychological principles of creativity. He proposed we examine rewards, social context, collaboration, peer interactions, and other social factors (Amabile & Pillemer, 2012).

Social Psychological Research

The environment and social support

Recent research examining creativity has shown a preference towards the social environment and our social groups within them as one of the most significant influences on creativity (Simonton, 2000). More specifically the differing levels of social support in varying environments and the effects this has on creativity. Research by Lepper et al., (1973) examined pre-schoolers and creative behaviour. This research questioned how rewards would influence the creativity in a drawing task. Children working for a "good player" award saw significant decreases in their enjoyment in the drawing task and spent less time drawing in their free time. Most surprisingly, all children were selected for this study due to their enthusiasm for marker drawing. The mere presence of a reward led to a significant change in the children's creativity. This leading research prompted further discussion and examination of environments such as the classroom.

The success of this study and continued research have been highly influential on the conduct of classroom environments. Modern classrooms now implement techniques prompted by psychological research to facilitate higher levels of creativity in their students (Morgan & Forster, 1999). For example, Pang (2015) noted that traditional teaching methods focus on children finding the correct answer and teach towards this collective goal. However, this study prompts teachers to move away from this and allow children to explore their creative thinking abilities further than the simplicity of correct or incorrect. Extensive research into creativity in the classroom has led to notable improvements in the conduct of classrooms and has significant practical applications. Creativity is integral to society; thus, promoting creativity in children is highly valued.

Following this, continued research has begun examining more specific types of social groups, specifically the social support within them. Research by Crozier (1999) proposed that the support we gain from social relationships with individuals such as peers and teachers contributes significantly to our creative process. More specifically, to be creative, we need 'assistors' in our social environment (Puccio et al., 1995). These individuals offer new creative perspectives and maintain an open environment that promotes creativity. Additional research has also suggested that these assistors do not need to be the authority and that peers can be effective social supporters. Similar results have been found in occupational settings. Han et al., (2022) found that employee acceptance of help positively correlates with individual and company creativity. In various environments, the functioning of peer interactions has a significant effect on individual creativity levels. It is concluded from this that individual learning plays an intermediary role between receiving help and formulating creative work. As a result, independent work can only be creative to a certain extent, and social support helps to extend this to a new level. The comparison of two contradictory sides of the research field demonstrates how a minor change in social support and assisters can significantly disrupt the creative process and decrease creative behaviour.

However, research has noted that the results produced from these studies may be due to alternative explanations. Many researchers have theorised that in scenarios such as the reward conditions of the Nisbett, Lepper, and Greene study, the social environments may not be the dominant influence on creativity. Instead, it is suggested that Intrinsic motivation theory truly influences creative behaviour (Amabile, 1983). This theory conceptualises that people are motivated by their internal desires instead of external sources (Steele et al., 2017). Within this theory, social motivation and support from our social environment underlie the internal motivation to be creative and are not the most significant influences on creativity. It is thus suggested that while social support from teachers and peers is still active and a valid influence on creativity, it underlies a much more complex process. This explanation expands the original social theories of creativity, suggesting the interaction between social and cognitive factors. Combining both factors provide a more comprehensive theory of creativity based on highly significant evidence.

Culture

Various cross-cultural research has examined how the priorities of cultures and what they promote as important can lead to differing levels of creativity (Kwan et al., 2018). It has been suggested that Eastern, collectivist cultures do not promote creativity to the extent that independent Western cultures do (Kim et al., 2011). Collectivist cultures promote harmony among individuals and interdependence, leading to higher levels of conformity within the culture (Bond, 2004). As a result, the high levels of conformity inhibit the creation of nuanced ideas from an individual. The proposal of a new theoretical model illustrates this effectively (Chua et al., 2014). This theorised that the tightness of a culture significantly predicts creative engagement and success. Cultural tightness refers to the extent to which a culture has strong social norms and low tolerance for deviant behaviours (Gelfand et al., 2006). It was observed that individuals from 'loose' cultures, where social norms were more lax, were more likely to engage successfully in a creative task. Recent research further supports this notion in a review of empirical findings across diverse studies of creativity (Shao et al., 2019). Results revealed that individuals from individualistic and collectivist cultures show differences in their preferences for creative processing modes when engaging in creative endeavours. This displays how conformity to social norms within a culture influences our creativity levels and ability to form novel ideas.

It is also proposed that the way a culture understands and perceives creativity will predict how creative their behaviour is. This is exemplified in a systematic review of nine articles examining the lay cultural perspective of creativity (Kwan et al., 2018). Results suggested that the understanding of creativity is significantly different across cultures. How a culture collectively views and perceives creativity influences how the individual within the society will behave. Similar research on American and Chinese students found that Western cultures endorse creativity far more than Eastern cultures, resulting in individuals frequently thinking more creatively. In addition, when American and Chinese bicultural students were primed with their 'American' cultural identity, they leaned towards creative behaviours (Mok & Morris, 2010). Further research into Chinese/American students presents evidence of the difference in perception of versatility between the two cultures. This study asked students to judge a piece of artwork or create one. American students created more visually aesthetic and creative pieces and produced stricter but more creative ideas when judging artwork (Niu & Sternberg, 2001). The cumulation of this research demonstrates how culture plays a vital role in creativity and how this can be utilised to prime individuals to produce more creative ideas.

However, it has been noted that most cross-cultural studies examine the role of culture by comparing Western cultures with Eastern cultures. While this has provided results that evidence the significant role of culture, it is ignorant of the cultural differences occurring within Western/Eastern cultures. Research into this may find alternative results, suggesting the influence of culture is far more complex. While we will observe differences in levels of creativity across cultures, we may also observe minor differences active within cultures. The ignorance of research to this factor makes the explanation of culture less comprehensive and thus less valid. We do not fully understand the extent to which culture influences creativity.

Social Comparison process

Theory of social identity. Depicted is social comparison whereby either type results in different outcomes.

Social Comparison process refers to the theory in which individuals evaluate their abilities and attitudes comparing themselves to others (Suls & Wheeler, 2012). Upward social comparison describes how one compares oneself to someone who is perceived to be better than oneself. Whereas, downward Social Comparison refers to comparing oneself to someone perceived as worse than oneself (Wills, 1981). Research has revealed that individual and group creativity is better in social feedback conditions. (Michinov & Primois, 2005). This suggests that social comparison process has a positive effect on creativity levels. Similar research in an online brainstorming session examined how social comparison and individual differences in creativity can influence levels of creative performance (Michinov et al., 2015). Forty-one psychology undergraduates engaged in a discussion with either an art or science student. Results revealed that the quality of ideas was greater in upward than downward comparison conditions. The results of this study support the notion that social comparison increases creative ideas. Social comparison theory contributes to overall creative behaviour and significantly facilitates more novel ideas.

However, the relationship between comparison and creativity remains complex and unclear. Various factors have been considered to influence creativity alongside social comparison (Li et al., 2023). For example, many researchers have considered the influence that the interpretation of feedback could have on an individual's creativity levels. For example, if an individual interprets feedback as personal criticism and takes offence, this could significantly decrease creativity. However, individuals who take criticism positively may utilise this and see significant increases in creativity. As a result, the relationship between social comparison and creativity is not clear and direct. This must be considered when forming conclusions and principles on the social psychology of creativity.

Direction of Future Research

Extensive research has emphasised the significance of influences such as social comparison, culture, and our social groups and their vital role in the production of creativity. The social psychological approach has advanced the study of creativity and enabled a greater understanding of its nature. This has proved highly valuable in many areas, including various occupations, childhood development, and the demand for nuanced and creative approaches. Future research continues to broaden and improve the explanations of creativity and strategies to increase frequency. Following this, where singular, isolated factors were previously discussed, modern psychological research may aim to understand how alternative factors such as cognition, biology, and personality interact with social factors during the creative process. No psychological process can be successfully reduced to a singular influence or variable; thus, creativity must be treated equally. Research should focus on manipulating these variables and predicting creative behaviours in individuals and wider society.

References

Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(2), 357–376. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.2.357

Amabile, T. M., & Pillemer, J. (2012). Perspectives on the Social Psychology of Creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 46(1), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.001

Bond, R. (2004). Conformity across cultures . Encyclopedia of Applied Psychology , 1, 457–460.

Chua, R. Y. J., Roth, Y., & Lemoine, J.-F. (2014). The Impact of Culture on Creativity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 60(2), 189–227. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839214563595

Crozier, W. R. (1999). Age and Individual Differences in Artistic Productivity: Trends Within a Sample of British Novelists. Creativity Research Journal, 12(3), 197–204. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1203_4

Gelfand, M. J., Nishii, L. H., & Raver, J. L. (2006). On the nature and importance of cultural tightness-looseness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6), 1225–1244. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1225

Guilford, J. P. (2017). Creativity: A quarter century of progress. In Perspectives in creativity (pp. 37-59). Routledge.

Guilford, J. P., & Vaughan, A. T. (1962). Factors that Aid and Hinder Creativity. Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education, 63(5), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146816206300503

Han, M., Li, R., Wang, W., Sun, Z., Zhang, J., & Han, H. (2022). The Effect of Mutual Help Behavior on Employee Creativity—Based on the Recipient’s Perspective. Sustainability, 14(18), 11182. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811182

Kim, H. H., Mishra, S., Hinds, P., & Liu, L. (2011). Creativity and Culture: State of the Art. Design Thinking Research, 75–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21643-5_5

Kwan, L. Y.-Y. ., Leung, A. K. ., & Liou, S. (2018). Culture, Creativity, and Innovation. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 49(2), 165–170. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022117753306

Lepper, M. R., Greene, D., & Nisbett, R. E. (1973). Undermining children’s intrinsic interest with extrinsic reward: A test of the “overjustification” hypothesis.. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28(1), 129–137. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0035519

Li, X., Tong, W., Li, Y., Lyu, Y., & Hu, W. (2023). The effects of social comparison and self-construal on creative idea generation: An EEG study. Behavioural Brain Research, 436, 114084. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2022.114084

Michinov, N., Jamet, E., Métayer, N., & Le Hénaff, B. (2015). The eyes of creativity: Impact of social comparison and individual creativity on performance and attention to others’ ideas during electronic brainstorming. Computers in Human Behavior, 42, 57–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.04.037

Michinov, N., & Primois, C. (2005). Improving productivity and creativity in online groups through social comparison process: New evidence for asynchronous electronic brainstorming. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(1), 11–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2004.02.004

Mok, A., & Morris, M. W. (2010). Asian-Americans’ Creative Styles in Asian and American Situations: Assimilative and Contrastive Responses as a Function of Bicultural Identity Integration. Management and Organization Review, 6(3), 371–390. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8784.2010.00190.x

Moran, S. (2010). The roles of creativity in society. The Cambridge handbook of creativity, 74-90.

Morgan, S., & Forster, J. (1999). Creativity in the Classroom. Gifted Education International, 14(1), 29–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/026142949901400105

Niu, W., & Sternberg, R. J. (2001). Cultural influences on artistic creativity and its evaluation. International Journal of Psychology, 36(4), 225–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207590143000036

Pang, W. (2015). Promoting creativity in the classroom: A generative view. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 9(2), 122–127. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000009

Puccio, G. J., Treffinger, D. J., & Talbot, R. J. (1995). Exploratory Examination of Relationships Between Creativity Styles and Creative Products. Creativity Research Journal, 8(2), 157–172. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj0802_4

Shao, Y., Zhang, C., Zhou, J., Gu, T., & Yuan, Y. (2019). How Does Culture Shape Creativity? A Mini-Review. Frontiers in Psychology, 10(1219). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01219

Simonton, D. K. (2000). Creativity: Cognitive, personal, developmental, and social aspects. American psychologist, 55(1), 151.

Simonton, D. K. (2012). Teaching Creativity. Teaching of Psychology, 39(3), 217–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628312450444

Steele, L. M., McIntosh, T., & Higgs, C. (2017). Intrinsic motivation and creativity: Opening up a black box. Handbook of Research on Leadership and Creativity, 100–130. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781784715465.00013

Wills, T. A. (1981). Downward Comparison Principles in Social psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 90(2), 245–271. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.90.2.245