REPOZYTORIUM UNIWERSYTETU
W BIAŁYMSTOKU
UwB

  1. Repozytorium Uniwersytetu w Białymstoku
  2. Czasopisma naukowe / Journals
  3. Creativity. Theories – Research – Applications
  4. Creativity. Theories – Research – Applications, 2020, Vol. 7, Issue 2

Szukanie zaawansowane
  • Zespoły i Kolekcje


  • Zaloguj się
  • Zarejestruj się
  • Mój RUB
  • FAQ
  • Polityka
  • Regulamin
  • DOI
  • Instrukcja
  • Aspekty prawne
  • Open Access
  • Archiwum


  • Kontakt
  • O Dspace
  • Strona Biblioteki
  • Strona Uczelni



    • Proszę używać tego identyfikatora do cytowań lub wstaw link do tej pozycji: http://hdl.handle.net/11320/20034
    Pełny rekord metadanych
    Pole DCWartośćJęzyk
    dc.contributor.authorAbdulla Alabbasi, Ahmed M.-
    dc.contributor.authorSumners, Sarah E.-
    dc.contributor.authorPaek, Sue Hyeon-
    dc.contributor.authorRunco, Mark A.-
    dc.date.accessioned2026-04-08T10:33:10Z-
    dc.date.available2026-04-08T10:33:10Z-
    dc.date.issued2020-
    dc.identifier.citationCreativity. Theories – Research – Applications, Vol. 7, Issue 2, 2020, pp. 251-283pl
    dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11320/20034-
    dc.descriptionThe first two authors contributed equally to this study. A preliminary version of this article was presented in poster form on August 5, 2018 at the Creativity Conference at the University of Southern Oregon in Ashland, Oregon.pl
    dc.description.abstractAfter more than six decades of systematic study of creativity, there is still no agreement regarding components essential to define creativity. Prior studies of implicit and explicit theories have suggested adding criteria to the standard definition of what creativity is; however, an alternative approach is to explore what creativity is not. The current investigation aimed to study both perspectives. The social validation method was employed in Study 1 (an open-ended questionnaire) to identify laypeople’s notions of creativity using content analysis of participant responses (n = 92). Results from Study 1 were used to build a quantitative questionnaire employed in Study 2 (n = 306). Descriptive statistics and Spearman Rank Correlations were used to analyze participant ratings in Study 2, showing consistent agreement that creativity is highly related to and overlapped with Imagination, Artistic Expression, Innovation, Originality, and Invention, while Knowledge, Ability, Unconventional Behavior, Morality, and Insanity were less related to and overlapped with creativity. Both implicit and explicit theories agreed on Originality and Innovation and disagreed on Artistic Expression, Imagination, and Invention. Usefulness received low ratings, although it is considered in all creativity definitions. Morality was not rated to be closely associated with creativity. Detailed findings are discussed with suggestions for future studies.pl
    dc.language.isoenpl
    dc.publisherUniversity of Białystokpl
    dc.rightsCreative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License-
    dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/-
    dc.subjectCreativitypl
    dc.subjectImplicit theoriespl
    dc.subjectExplicit theoriespl
    dc.subjectBeliefspl
    dc.subjectSocial validationpl
    dc.titleAssociation, Overlap, and Inhibition: A Study of Implicit Theories of Creativitypl
    dc.typeArticlepl
    dc.rights.holder© 2021 Ahmed M. Abdulla Alabbasi, Sarah E. Sumners, Sue Hyeon Paek, Mark A. Runco, published by University of Białystok.pl
    dc.rights.holderThis work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.pl
    dc.identifier.doi10.2478/ctra-2020-0014-
    dc.description.EmailAhmed M. Abdulla Alabbasi: ahmedmda@agu.edu.bhpl
    dc.description.EmailSarah E. Sumners: ssumners@uga.edupl
    dc.description.EmailSue Hyeon Paek: SueHyeon.Paek@unco.edupl
    dc.description.EmailMark A. Runco: runcom@sou.edupl
    dc.description.AffiliationAhmed M. Abdulla Alabbasi - Arabian Gulf University, Kingdom of Bahrainpl
    dc.description.AffiliationSarah E. Sumners - University of Georgia, USApl
    dc.description.AffiliationSue Hyeon Paek - University of Northern Colorado, USApl
    dc.description.AffiliationMark A. Runco - Southern Oregon University, USApl
    dc.description.referencesAbdulla, A. M. & Cramond, B. (2017). After six decades of systematic study of creativity: What do teachers need to know about what it is and how it is measured? Roeper Review, 39(1), 9-23. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2016.1247398pl
    dc.description.referencesAltheide, D. L. (1987). Ethnographic content analysis. Qualitative Sociology, 10(1), 65. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00988269pl
    dc.description.referencesAmabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. Springer-Verlag.pl
    dc.description.referencesAmabile, T. M. (1990). Within you, without you: Towards a social psychology of creativity, and beyond. In M.A. Runco & R. S. Albert (Eds.), Theories of creativity. Sage.pl
    dc.description.referencesChan, D. W., & Chan, L-K. (1999). Implicit theories of creativity: Teachers’ perception of student characteristics in Hong Kong. Creativity Research Journal, 12(3), 185-195. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1203_3pl
    dc.description.referencesCohen, L. M. (2011). Adaptation, adaptiveness, and creativity. In M. A. Runco & S. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (2nd. ed.). San Diego, CA: Elsevier.pl
    dc.description.referencesCreswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative & quantitative approaches. Sage Publications.pl
    dc.description.referencesCropley, A. (2016). The myths of Heaven-sent creativity: Toward a perhaps less democratic but more down-to-earth understanding. Creativity Research Journal, 28(3), 238-246. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2016.1195614pl
    dc.description.referencesDane, E. (2010). Reconsidering the trade-off between expertise and flexibility: A cognitive entrenchment perspective. Academy of Management Review, 35(4), 579-603. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.35.4.zok579pl
    dc.description.referencesEducational Testing Service (2016). The TOEFL ITP assessment series: Test taker handbook.pl
    dc.description.referencesGardner, W. L., Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., May, D. R., & Walumbwa, F. (2005). “Can you see the real me?” A self-based model of authentic leader and follower development. Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 343-372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.03.003pl
    dc.description.referencesGlaveanu, V. P. (2011). Is the lightbulb still on? Social representations of creativity in Western context. The International Journal of Creativity & Problem Solving, 21(1), 53-72.pl
    dc.description.referencesGruber, H. E. (1993). Creativity in the moral domain: Ought implies can implies create. Creativity Research Journal, 6(1-2), 3-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/1040041 9309534462pl
    dc.description.referencesKapur, R. L., Subramanyam, S., & Shah A. (1997). Creativity in Indian science. Psychology and Developing Societies, 9(2), 161-187. https://doi.org/10.1177/097133369 700900202pl
    dc.description.referencesKarwowski, M. (2010). Are creative students really welcome in the classrooms? Implicit theories of “good” and “creative” student’ personality among polish teachers. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 1233-1237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.179pl
    dc.description.referencesKharkhurin, A. V. (2014). Creativity.4in1: Four-criterion construct of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 26(3), 338-352. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2014.929424pl
    dc.description.referencesKokotsaki, D. (2011). Student teachers’ conceptions of creativity in the secondary music classroom. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 6(2), 100-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2011.04.001pl
    dc.description.referencesLayperson., & (n.d.) In Oxford Online Dictionary. https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/laypersonpl
    dc.description.referencesMartin, L., & Wilson, N. (2017). Defining creativity with discovery. Creativity Research Journal, 29(4), 417-425. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2017.1376543pl
    dc.description.referencesMcLaren, R. B. (1993). The dark side of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 6(1-2), 137-144. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419309534472pl
    dc.description.referencesMerriam, S. G. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.pl
    dc.description.referencesMorais, M. F., & Azevedo, I. (2011). What is a creative teacher and what is a creative pupil? Perceptions of teachers. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 12, 330-339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.02.042pl
    dc.description.referencesPaletz, S. B. F., & Kaiping Peng. (2008). Implicit theories of creativity across cultures: Novelty and appropriateness in two product domains. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 39(3), 286-302. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022108315112pl
    dc.description.referencesPizzingrilli, P., & Antonietti, A. (2010). Implicit theories of creativity in schoolchildren: An exploratory study. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 4732-4736. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.759pl
    dc.description.referencesRomo, M., & Alfonso, V. (2003). Implicit theories of Spanish painters. Creativity Research Journal, 15(4), 409-415. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326934CRJ1504_8pl
    dc.description.referencesRunco, M. A. (1984). Teachers’ judgments of creativity and social validation of divergent thinking tests. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 59, 711-717. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1984.59.3.711pl
    dc.description.referencesRunco, M. A. (1993). Creative Morality: Intentional and unconventional. Creativity Research Journal, 6(1-2), 17-28. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419309534463pl
    dc.description.referencesRunco, M. A. (2011). Implicit theories. In M. A. Runco & S. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Creativity (2nd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 644-646). Academic Press.pl
    dc.description.referencesRunco, M. A. (2014). Creativity: Theories and themes: Research, development, and practice (2nd ed.). Elsevier Academic Press.pl
    dc.description.referencesRunco, M. A., & Bahleda, M. D. (1986). Implicit theories of artistic, scientific, and everyday creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 20(2), 93-98. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1986.tb00423.xpl
    dc.description.referencesRunco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 92-96. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.650092pl
    dc.description.referencesRunco, M. A., & Johnson, D.J. (2002). Parents’ and teachers’ implicit theories of children’s creativity: A cross-cultural perspective. Creativity Research Journal, 14(3-4), 427-438. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326934CRJ1434_12pl
    dc.description.referencesRunco, M. A., Johnson, D. J., & Bear, P. K. (1993). Parents’ and teachers’ implicit theories of children’s creativity. Child Study Journal, 23, 91-113.pl
    dc.description.referencesSen, R. S., & Sharma N. (2011). Through multiple lenses: Implicit theories of creativity among Indian children and adults. Journal of Creative Behavior, 45(2), 273-302. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2011.tb01431.xpl
    dc.description.referencesSimonton, D. K. (2016). Defining creativity: Don’t we also need to define what is not creative? The Journal of Creative Behavior, 52(1), 80-90. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.137pl
    dc.description.referencesSternberg, R. J. (1985). Implicit theories of intelligence, creativity and wisdom. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(3), 607-627. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.49.3.607pl
    dc.description.referencesSternberg, R. J. (2017). ACCEL: A new model for identifying the gifted. Roeper Review, 39(3), 152-169. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2017.1318658pl
    dc.description.referencesTaylor, M. (2013). The Oxford Handbook of the Development of Imagination. Oxford University Press.pl
    dc.description.referencesWickes, K. N. S., & Ward, T. B. (2006). Measuring gifted adolescents’ implicit theories of creativity. Roeper Review, 28(3), 131-139. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190609554352pl
    dc.description.referencesWilliams, R., Runco, M. A., & Berlow, E. (2016). Mapping the themes, impact, and cohesion of creativity research over the last 25 years. Creativity Research Journal, 28(4), 385-394. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2016.1230358pl
    dc.identifier.eissn2354-0036-
    dc.description.volume7pl
    dc.description.issue2pl
    dc.description.firstpage251pl
    dc.description.lastpage283pl
    dc.identifier.citation2Creativity. Theories – Research – Applicationspl
    Występuje w kolekcji(ach):Creativity. Theories – Research – Applications, 2020, Vol. 7, Issue 2

    Pliki w tej pozycji:
    Plik Opis RozmiarFormat 
    Creativity_7_2_2020_AMA_Alabbasi_SE_Sumners_SH_Paek_MA_Runco_Association_Overlap_and_Inhibition.pdf624,61 kBAdobe PDFOtwórz
    Pokaż uproszczony widok rekordu Zobacz statystyki


    Pozycja ta dostępna jest na podstawie licencji Licencja Creative Commons CCL Creative Commons