Hello jackbe-ga:
It was a pleasure to answer your question. I went to the local library
to provide you with an answer. I searched through a variety of books.
I am providing you an excerpt from the book that I think is most
suitable to your question and the explanation is very lucid with easy
to understand language. The name of the book and other relevant
sources are provided at the end.
EXCREPT
Although a wide gulf exist between the researchers in defining the
creativity but in general terms it can be defined as the ability to
produce “products” (such as plays, solutions to social problems,
poems, sources of energy, symphonies) that are both novel and socially
valued (useful, aesthetically beautiful, informative and so on.
We typically view creativity as an individual ability or attribute,
similar to intelligence. What, then, determines whether a particular
individual is creative? Guilford (150, 1967) has used the concept of
convergent and divergent thinking to evaluate creative ability.
Convergent thinking is logical, factual, conventional, and focused on
a problem until a solution is found. When you are asked to solve an
algebra problem, you use your convergent thinking skills to provide
the answer. Most formal teaching emphasizes the teaching and
assessment of convergent thinking. Students are encouraged to discover
the “right” answer. In contrast divergent thinking is loosely
organized, only partially directed, and unconventional. Unlike
convergent thinking, divergent thinking produces answers that must be
evaluated subjectively. If we were asked t list many possible uses of
brick, it is likely that some of our answers would be unique, and the
“correctness” of our answers would sometimes be less unclear. In this
example, individuals who list the most novel uses of common objects,
whether they are “sensible” uses or not, are considered to be the most
divergent thinkers. Divergent thinkers, in other words, most easily
break out of mental sets that limit our thinking. In our culture,
people who are good divergent thinkers tend to be thought of as
creative (Butcher, 1968).
An individual’s creativity might also be a result of the intelligence.
Most of the individuals that we think of as highly creative are also
highly intelligent (Butcher, 1968).
However, most researchers in the area of creativity believe that
creative thinking is to some extent separate from general
intelligence. Raaheim and Kaufmann (1972) provide evidence that people
who successfully solve novel problems are different from unsuccessful
problem solvers in the amount of effort they make, rather than their
basic intelligence. Successful problem solvers attempt more solutions
to the problem before giving up. Anne Roe (1946, 1953) found that a
group of creative scientists and artists shared only one common
characteristic – the willingness to work really hard. It is possible
to be highly creative without being highly intelligent, and vice
versa.
Regardless of individual ability, how does the creative process occur?
Many years ago, Wallas (1926) suggested that creative problem solving
typically proceeds in four steps. The first step, preparation,
includes initial attempts to formulate the problem, recall relevant
facts, and think about possible solutions. The second step,
incubation, is a period of rest. Wallas used the term incubation to
compare the creative solution to an egg that needed to be incubated
for a while before it is “hatched”. People trying to solve difficult
problems that require creative solutions generally feel the need to
set the problems aside for a while after the initial preparation
period. Wallas believed that the creative solution
needed this time to “incubate”. The third step, called illumination,
refers o a sudden insight pertaining to the solution. The final step,
verification, involves the necessary but sometimes anticlimactic step
of testing the solution.
A creative solution to important human problem does not always emerge
in this way, but many anecdotes in history show how difficult problems
have been creatively solved in a burst of insight following periods of
preparation and incubation. For example, the creative problem-solving
abilities of the current Greek scientist Archimedes were challenged by
his king. The king was suspicious that his beautiful new crown was
actually made of a thin layer of gold plate over wood or some other
inexpensive substance. Archimedes was asked by the king to determine
if the crown was solid gold. This would not ordinarily be a difficult
problem, as Archimedes could easily cut through the crown or melt it
and examine its contents, but the king loved the crown and instructed
Archimedes not to harm it. After much initial thought (preparation),
Archimedes gave up on the problem for a while (incubation) and took a
bath. While floating in the bath he achieved illumination. He realized
that he could solve the problem by placing the crown in water and
measuring the amount of water it displaced by gold and less dense
substances such as wood, he easily could determine the gold content of
the crown without scratching it (only giving it a nice bath).
Archimedes was thrilled by the moment of insight that he reputedly ran
through the town, shouting, “Eureka!” - Greek for “I found it!”
Hayes (1978) propeses three ways of making creative thinking more
likely. First, individuals must have a knowledge base. Most creative
geniuses appear to build their best work on a firm foundation of
knowledge of their field. Learning as much as you can about your
problem will increase your chances of solving it creatively. Second,
we require the right atmosphere for creativity. People do their best
creative work when they are given time to let their ideas incubate and
are not inhibited by criticism for novel ideas.
Often, working with a group of people (brainstorming) provides
effective atmosphere for developing creative solutions. Finally,
People can develop creative solutions to problems considering
analogies, or similarities to other problems that have been solved in
the past. A fourth hint, implied by the earlier discussion regarding
individual differences in creativity, suggests that you can improve
your own creative problem solving by being persistent.
Robert Sternberg of Yale University has likened creativity to a good
investment strategy in the stock market (Sternberg & Lubart, 1992,
1993). Sternberg believes that many creative problem solvers succeed
in spite of not being provided with an atmosphere that promotes
creativity. He points out that creative people, like successful
inventors, “buy low and sell high.” IN other words, creative solutions
are often not valued by others at first _ they seem off and unlikely.
The creative thinker frequently has to put up with being ignored, or
even scorned, at first. Creative problem solvers must have a high
tolerance for the initial skepticism. Indeed Sternberg suggests that
many creative problem solvers enjoy breaking new ground, even if there
are not valued at first. When a creative new idea does achieve
acceptance, creative people often move on to something new.
SOURCE
An Introduction to Psychology by Benjamin B. Lahey (seventh edition)
Lahey, B. Benjamin. An Introduction to Psychology. New York, McGraw
Hill Inc., 2001.
REFERENCE
Guilford, J.P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York:
McGraw-Hill
Butcher H.J. (1968). Human Intelligence: Its nature and assessment.
New York: Harper Torchbooks.
Raaheim, K., & Kaufmann, G. (1972). Level of activity and success in
solving an unfamiliar task. Psychological Reports, 30, 271-274.
Wallas,G. (1926). The art of thought. New York: Harcourt Brace.
Hayes, J.R. (1978). Cognitive Psychology: Thinking and creating.
Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.
Sternberg & Lubart. (1992, 1993). Creative giftedness: A multivariate
investment approach. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37, 7-15.
I hope this will help. Please clarify, if you need further help.
Thanks for using Google Answers and I wish you very good luck.
Sincerely,
Leader-ga. |
