Top Banner
Creativity Beth A. Hennessey 1 and Teresa M. Amabile 2 1 Department of Psychology, Wellesley College, Wellesley, Massachusetts 02481; email: [email protected] 2 Harvard Business School, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts 02163; email: [email protected] Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2010. 61:569–98 First published online as a Review in Advance on October 19, 2009 The Annual Review of Psychology is online at psych.annualreviews.org This article’s doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100416 Copyright c 2010 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved 0066-4308/10/0110-0569$20.00 Key Words innovation, intrinsic motivation, divergent thinking Abstract The psychological study of creativity is essential to human progress. If strides are to be made in the sciences, humanities, and arts, we must arrive at a far more detailed understanding of the creative process, its antecedents, and its inhibitors. This review, encompassing most subspe- cialties in the study of creativity and focusing on twenty-first-century literature, reveals both a growing interest in creativity among psycholo- gists and a growing fragmentation in the field. To be sure, research into the psychology of creativity has grown theoretically and methodologi- cally sophisticated, and researchers have made important contributions from an ever-expanding variety of disciplines. But this expansion has not come without a price. Investigators in one subfield often seem unaware of advances in another. Deeper understanding requires more interdis- ciplinary research, based on a systems view of creativity that recognizes a variety of interrelated forces operating at multiple levels. 569 Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2010.61:569-598. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org by University of Colorado - Boulder on 10/08/12. For personal use only.
33

Creativity - Leeds School of Businessleeds-faculty.colorado.edu/dahe7472/amabile creativity review.pdf · creativity. That publication was supplemented in 1988 by the Creativity Research

May 26, 2020

Download

Documents

dariahiddleston
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Page 1: Creativity - Leeds School of Businessleeds-faculty.colorado.edu/dahe7472/amabile creativity review.pdf · creativity. That publication was supplemented in 1988 by the Creativity Research

ANRV398-PS61-22 ARI 5 November 2009 14:18

CreativityBeth A. Hennessey1 and Teresa M. Amabile2

1Department of Psychology, Wellesley College, Wellesley, Massachusetts 02481;email: [email protected] Business School, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts 02163;email: [email protected]

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2010. 61:569–98

First published online as a Review in Advance onOctober 19, 2009

The Annual Review of Psychology is online atpsych.annualreviews.org

This article’s doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100416

Copyright c© 2010 by Annual Reviews.All rights reserved

0066-4308/10/0110-0569$20.00

Key Words

innovation, intrinsic motivation, divergent thinking

AbstractThe psychological study of creativity is essential to human progress. Ifstrides are to be made in the sciences, humanities, and arts, we mustarrive at a far more detailed understanding of the creative process, itsantecedents, and its inhibitors. This review, encompassing most subspe-cialties in the study of creativity and focusing on twenty-first-centuryliterature, reveals both a growing interest in creativity among psycholo-gists and a growing fragmentation in the field. To be sure, research intothe psychology of creativity has grown theoretically and methodologi-cally sophisticated, and researchers have made important contributionsfrom an ever-expanding variety of disciplines. But this expansion has notcome without a price. Investigators in one subfield often seem unawareof advances in another. Deeper understanding requires more interdis-ciplinary research, based on a systems view of creativity that recognizesa variety of interrelated forces operating at multiple levels.

569

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

010.

61:5

69-5

98. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Col

orad

o -

Bou

lder

on

10/0

8/12

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

Page 2: Creativity - Leeds School of Businessleeds-faculty.colorado.edu/dahe7472/amabile creativity review.pdf · creativity. That publication was supplemented in 1988 by the Creativity Research

ANRV398-PS61-22 ARI 5 November 2009 14:18

Creativity: thegeneration of productsor ideas that are bothnovel and appropriate

Contents

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 570REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE:

CREATIVITY AS SEEN FROMDIFFERENT LEVELS OFANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 572Definition and Measurement . . . . . . . 572Neurological/Biological Basis . . . . . . . 573Affect, Cognition, and Training . . . . . 574Individual Differences/Personality . . 577Groups and Teams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 578The Social Psychology

of Creativity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 581Social Environment:

Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 582Social Environment: Schools . . . . . . . 585Social Environment: Culture . . . . . . . 587

CONCLUSION: TAKING ASYSTEMS PERSPECTIVE . . . . . . . 589

INTRODUCTION

Why study creativity? Even if this mysteriousphenomenon can be isolated, quantified, anddissected, why bother? Wouldn’t it make moresense to revel in the mystery and wonder of itall? From a purely theoretical standpoint, re-searchers and scholars are anxious to learn asmuch as possible about the distinctively humancapacity to generate new ideas, new approaches,and new solutions. We strive to understand theexperiences of Picasso, da Vinci, Einstein, andthe like, and we question what, if anything, weourselves have in common with these amazingindividuals. On a more practical level, educa-tors, parents, employers, and policy makers re-alize all too well that it is only with creativitythat we can hope to address the myriad prob-lems facing our schools and medical facilities,our cities and towns, our economy, our nation,and the world. Creativity is one of the key fac-tors that drive civilization forward. As he beganhis administration in January 2009, U.S. Pres-ident Obama called for substantial increases infederal funds for basic research and efforts to

boost math, science, and engineering educa-tion; he entered office with the first-ever pres-idential arts platform as well. But it will takemore than money and rhetoric. If we are tomake real strides in boosting the creativity ofscientists, mathematicians, artists, and all uponwhom civilization depends, we must arrive ata far more detailed understanding of the cre-ative process, its antecedents, and its inhibitors.The study of creativity must be seen as a basicnecessity.

In fact, scholarly research on creativity isproliferating; a variety of new publication out-lets have emerged. When we started our ownresearch careers, the Journal of Creative Behaviorwas the one periodical dedicated to the study ofcreativity. That publication was supplementedin 1988 by the Creativity Research Journal.The inaugural issue of Psychology of Creativity,Aesthetics and the Arts, a publication of APA di-vision 10, came in 2007; in recent years, a vari-ety of additional journals have also proven to beimportant outlets for creativity research. Theseinclude the International Journal of Creativityand Problem Solving and the Journal of Think-ing Skills and Creativity. Add to this lineup thelong list of books and general psychology jour-nals publishing research in the area of creativity,and the prospect of reviewing the creativity lit-erature becomes both daunting and exciting.

Our review attempts to encompass mostof the subspecialties in the study of creativity,including the social psychology of creativity—our own area of specialization. We followeda two-part process. The first step involvedthe polling of colleagues, and the second stepinvolved winnowing through our own searchof the literature. To begin, we brainstormeda list of active researchers and theorists whomwe believe have made the most significant con-tributions to the creativity literature and askedthem to nominate up to 10 papers, publishedsince about 2000, that they considered “musthave” references. We contacted 26 colleaguesand heard back from 21. Some of these sug-gested papers were self-nominations, but mostwere by others. In total, we received over 110suggestions for specific journal articles, book

570 Hennessey · Amabile

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

010.

61:5

69-5

98. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Col

orad

o -

Bou

lder

on

10/0

8/12

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

Page 3: Creativity - Leeds School of Businessleeds-faculty.colorado.edu/dahe7472/amabile creativity review.pdf · creativity. That publication was supplemented in 1988 by the Creativity Research

ANRV398-PS61-22 ARI 5 November 2009 14:18

chapters, books, or entire volumes of a journaldevoted to a particular topic.

For our own search of the literature, weconducted a thorough electronic (EBSCO)review—searching for empirical journal arti-cles, chapters, and entire books published be-tween 1998 and 2008 and focused on creativity.This search yielded over 400 additional cita-tions that we believed were interesting, rele-vant, and potentially important. This list toohad to be significantly reduced.

Perhaps our biggest surprise, in examin-ing the suggestions made by colleagues, wasjust how wide reaching their recommendationswere. In fact, we came to wonder and worryabout why there was so very little overlap interms of material suggested. Of the 110 nomi-nated papers, only seven were suggested by twocolleagues, and only one was suggested by threecolleagues. What did this diversity of opinion,this lack of consensus, say about the state of thefield? As we compiled this review, we were con-sistently struck by what can only be termed agrowing fragmentation of the field. For the firstthree decades of modern psychological researchinto creativity (starting circa 1950), there werea small number of “big questions” that most re-searchers focused on: creative personality andcreative thinking techniques. Then, for manyyears, there was an additional focus on the so-cial psychology of creativity. Since the 1990s,we have seen a virtual explosion of topics, per-spectives, and methodologies in the creativity

literature. Yet there seem to be few, if any, “big”questions being pursued by a critical mass ofcreativity researchers. In many respects, schol-ars’ understanding of the psychology of creativ-ity has grown amazingly sophisticated, and weare excited by the contributions of researchersrepresenting an ever-expanding variety of dis-ciplines and backgrounds. But this expansionhas not come without a price. It is our firm im-pression that investigators in one subfield oftenseem entirely unaware of advances in another.This means that research is often done at onlyone level of analysis—say, the individual or thegroup—and within only one discipline at a time.Of course, some of the work we review doescross levels of analysis. Where appropriate, werecognize and emphasize the overlap that al-ready exists between the various subspecialtiesand approaches to the study of the psychologyof creativity.

The underlying theme of this review isthe need for a systems view of creativity.We believe that more progress will be madewhen more researchers recognize that creativ-ity arises through a system of interrelated forcesoperating at multiple levels, often requiring in-terdisciplinary investigation. Figure 1 presentsa simplified schematic of the major levels atwhich these forces operate. The model is sim-plified because, as noted, existing research doescross levels. And, in fact, the “whole” of the cre-ative process must be viewed as much more thana simple sum of its parts. Individuals are much

Figure 1The increasingly large concentric circles in this simplified schematic represent the major levels at whichcreativity forces operate.

www.annualreviews.org • Creativity 571

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

010.

61:5

69-5

98. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Col

orad

o -

Bou

lder

on

10/0

8/12

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

Page 4: Creativity - Leeds School of Businessleeds-faculty.colorado.edu/dahe7472/amabile creativity review.pdf · creativity. That publication was supplemented in 1988 by the Creativity Research

ANRV398-PS61-22 ARI 5 November 2009 14:18

“Big C” (eminent)creativity: relativelyrare displays ofcreativity that have amajor impact on others

“Little c” (everyday)creativity: dailyproblem solving andthe ability to adapt tochange

more than their affect, cognition, or training.And social environments or groups may be em-bedded within particular cultures or societies,but they also crosscut them, as when multiplecultural or religious groups live together withina society.

Figure 1 also provides the scheme we use fororganizing this review. We begin with an exam-ination of research directed at the most micro-scopic level—neurological activity in the brain.We then work out through ever-broadeninglenses of focus and toward a review of the lit-erature devoted to the impact of classroom orworkplace environments as well as entire cul-tures on creative behavior. Our review endswith an overview of some of the more com-prehensive theories of creativity and a call forresearchers and theorists to work toward thedevelopment of entire systems perspectives.

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE:CREATIVITY AS SEEN FROMDIFFERENT LEVELS OFANALYSIS

Definition and Measurement

Before exploring the research being done at thevarious levels of our concentric circle model, itis essential to examine the current thinking andtheorizing surrounding the identification of thecreative person or process and the assessmentof the creative product. What is it that contem-porary creativity researchers claim to be inves-tigating, and how do they operationalize thisentity they call creativity? Criteria for assessingpersons or products may appear to be straight-forward after decades of research. But appear-ances deceive. Debates surrounding definitionand measurement continue to loom large. Al-though most researchers and theorists agreethat creativity involves the development of anovel product, idea, or problem solution thatis of value to the individual and/or the largersocial group, psychologists have had great diffi-culty finding consensus as to definitional com-ponents that reach beyond these two criteria ofnovelty and appropriateness (value).

But this doesn’t mean that researchers andtheorists have given up on trying to refinetheir definitions and measurement techniques.Plucker & Runco’s seminal (1998) reviewrightly declared that the death of creativitymeasurement had been greatly exaggerated; infact, a number of researchers are probing is-sues of definition. Sullivan & Ford (2005) exam-ined the relation between assessments of prod-uct novelty and creativity in an organizationalsetting. And Gluck et al. (2002) investigatedwhether artists who face strong external con-straints differ in their conceptions of creativ-ity from artists who are free in their choice oftopics, materials, and time schedule. Questionsof definition and the experimental paradigmsemployed are becoming increasingly complex,yet our ability to precisely define what we meanby creativity remains fairly stagnant. Kaufmann(2003b) argued that the concept of creativity hasbeen too loosely defined and inappropriatelydriven by a bottom-up operationalist approach.Kaufmann called for a clear-cut distinction be-tween novelty on the stimulus and novelty onthe response end as well as a new taxonomy ofdifferent kinds of creativity and intelligent be-havior, including proactive and reactive creativ-ity. In a follow-up to this proposal, Beghetto &Kaufman (2007) argued that in addition to thestudy of “Big C” (eminent) creativity and “lit-tle c” (everyday) creativity, it is also essentialto explore what might be termed “mini c” cre-ativity, or the creative processes involved in theconstruction of personal knowledge and under-standing. Clearly, a creativity researcher’s cho-sen metric and methodology will largely dependon which of the concentric circles in our modelis being investigated.

The Creativity of Products. The creativityof products is typically the focus of experi-mental paradigms that vary the conditions un-der which one or more individual’s creativityis assessed. Here creativity is seen as a fleetingand largely situation-dependent state (ratherthan a relatively stable and enduring personalitytrait). Although Runco maintained in his 2004Annual Review article that the assessment of

572 Hennessey · Amabile

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

010.

61:5

69-5

98. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Col

orad

o -

Bou

lder

on

10/0

8/12

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

Page 5: Creativity - Leeds School of Businessleeds-faculty.colorado.edu/dahe7472/amabile creativity review.pdf · creativity. That publication was supplemented in 1988 by the Creativity Research

ANRV398-PS61-22 ARI 5 November 2009 14:18

product creativity is rarely used with nonem-inent individuals, this approach was expresslydeveloped for and is particularly useful in thestudy of everyday (little c) creativity. In the con-temporary literature, the identification and as-sessment of creative products, be they poems,paintings, scientific theories, or technologicalbreakthroughs, rests largely on a consensual as-sessment process. Researchers wishing to as-sess the creativity of tangible products havelong relied on the consensual assessment ofexperts, formalized for nearly 30 years in theConsensual Assessment Technique (Amabile1982, Hennessey & Amabile 1999). Becauseof its relative simplicity and the consistentlyhigh levels of interrater agreements reached,this methodology enjoys wide use and contin-ued examination in the creativity literature (e.g.,Baer et al. 2004, Kaufman et al. 2007). In recentyears, consensual assessment methodologieshave also been extended to far more “messy”real-world classroom and workplace environ-ments, including cross-cultural contexts (e.g.,Amabile & Mueller 2008, Lee et al. 2005).

The Creativity of Persons. The creativity ofpersons is typically the focus of experimentalparadigms, case studies, or questionnaire-basedinvestigations that operationalize creativity as arelatively enduring and largely stable personal-ity trait. The death of E. Paul Torrance (1915–2003) marked the end of one of the most influ-ential careers in creativity research of this genre.Researchers have employed the TorranceTests of Creative Thinking (TTCT; Torrance1966/1974) for more than four decades, andthese measures continue to dominate the fieldwhen it comes to the testing of individuals.With Torrance’s passing came a proliferationof research projects dedicated to his memory(Fryer 2006, Kaufman & Baer 2006). Someof this research used contemporary statisticalmethods to address the underlying structure,reliability, and validity of the TTCT (K.H. Kim2006, Plucker 1999). In addition, Cramondet al. (1999) and Wechsler (2006) were amonga dozen or more researchers to examine and

TTCT: TorranceTests of CreativeThinking

fMRI: functionalmagnetic resonanceimaging

firmly establish the cross-cultural applicationand validity of the TTCT over the past 10 years.

Despite the wide acclaim accorded to theTTCT, many question the utility and/or psy-chometric properties of general tests of creativeability. Baer (2008) concluded that creativityis best conceptualized as domain specific andargued that this domain specificity explainswhy divergent-thinking tests have not met withmore success; research by Mumford and col-leagues (1998, 2008) also questioned the valid-ity of divergent-thinking tests. However, otherresearchers have defended divergent-thinkingmeasures, such as those used in the Wallach-Kogan Creativity Tests (Cheung et al. 2004, Lee2008). A host of other researchers and psycho-metricians have been busy with the close exam-ination of existing creative-ability and creative-personality measures and the development ofnew ones (e.g., Epstein et al. 2008, Nassif &Quevillon 2008, Silvia et al. 2008). Finally,Silvia (2008) reanalyzed “old” data with the useof advanced methodology to explore the re-lation of creativity and intelligence. Researchhas generally shown these two constructs to bemodestly related; yet, some studies have contra-dicted this assumption. Silvia found that latentoriginality and fluency variables significantlypredicted intelligence. The relations’ magni-tude (r = 0.20) was also consistent with pre-vious research.

Neurological/Biological Basis

The advancement of technology, particularlyfunctional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI),coupled with increases in access to equipmentfor researchers is in large part responsible forthe virtual explosion of information on the“creative brain.” How does the brain generatecreative ideas or solutions? At the neurologicallevel, is there only one creative process or arethere many? Is it possible to look into the brainand find evidence of creative thinking in thesame way that modern cognitive neuroscientistshave uncovered some of the neural underpin-nings of memory, emotion, and attention? Oris creativity outside the realm of neuroscience

www.annualreviews.org • Creativity 573

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

010.

61:5

69-5

98. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Col

orad

o -

Bou

lder

on

10/0

8/12

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

Page 6: Creativity - Leeds School of Businessleeds-faculty.colorado.edu/dahe7472/amabile creativity review.pdf · creativity. That publication was supplemented in 1988 by the Creativity Research

ANRV398-PS61-22 ARI 5 November 2009 14:18

Intrinsic motivation:the drive to engage ina task because it isinteresting, enjoyable,or positivelychallenging

Divergent thinking:spontaneous,free-flowing thinkingwith the goal ofgenerating manydifferent ideas in ashort period

understanding? One growing body of researchattempts to uncover information about the neu-rological basis of creative behavior based on thestudy of individuals displaying aphasia or otherbrain abnormalities and injuries. Mell and col-leagues (2003) traced the progression of aphasiasymptoms associated with frontotemporal de-mentia in a talented artist. They observed thatlanguage is not required for, and may even in-hibit, certain types of visual creativity. Millerand coworkers (2000, 2004) focused their at-tention on the emergence of new skills in pa-tients with dementia and found that loss of brainfunction in one area may lead to facilitation ofartistic or musical skills.

As early as 1998, Bowden and Jung-Beemanpresented data suggesting that semantic acti-vation in the right hemisphere may help solveinsight problems. And subsequent papers bythese same authors ( Jung-Beeman & Bowden2000, Bowden & Jung-Beeman 2003) builton the view that there is a strong associationbetween semantic activation in the right hemi-sphere and the “Aha!” experience when peoplerecognize solutions to insight-like prob-lems. Using electroencephalographic topogra-phy and frequency as well as fMRI, Kouniosand colleagues (2006) went on to suggest thatmental preparation leading to insight involvesheightened activity in medial frontal areas as-sociated with cognitive control and in tempo-ral areas associated with semantic processing.Noninsight preparation, in contrast, appears toinvolve increased occipital activity consistentwith an increase in externally directed visualattention. Taken together, these investigationshave offered exciting evidence of how behav-ioral priming and neuroimaging methods canprovide information about neural activity dur-ing insight.

In addition to empirical explorations of thecreative process at the neuronal level, there istheoretical work. For example, Vandervert andhis coinvestigators (2007) cited the centrality ofnovelty and originality in creative thought andargued that, because the cerebellum increasesthe rapidity and efficiency of memory routines,it likely plays a central role in the creative

process. However, several authors offered in-cisive critiques of this model (Abraham 2007,Brown 2007). In summary, although techno-logical advances have increased exponentially,scientists interested in the neurological basisof creative behavior have a long way to go be-fore they can hope to reach consensus. As theyproceed down this groundbreaking and ever-changing investigative path, researchers mustmake certain that it is sound theorizing and datathat drive their use of new technologies and notthe technologies themselves that dictate futureresearch questions and directions. The possi-bilities are promising, but we are not anywherenear the point of being able to image the cre-ative process as it unfolds in the human brain.Even cutting-edge instruments mask the orderin which various brain areas become activatedin the massive parallel processing that results inhigh-level creativity (Miller 2007).

Affect, Cognition, and Training

Affect. Most experimental studies of affect andcreativity have shown that positive affect leadsto higher levels of creativity. When negativeaffect has an influence, it is generally nega-tive. The bulk of this research indicates thatpositive affect facilitates not only intrinsicmotivation (e.g., Isen & Reeve 2005) but alsoflexible thinking and problem solving evenon especially complex and difficult tasks (seeAspinwall 1998, Isen 2000). Yet the affect-creativity association is complicated. Kaufmann(2003a) refutes the mainstream argument thatpositive mood reliably facilitates creativity.Some studies have shown that positive moodmay facilitate productivity but not quality ofideas (e.g., Vosburg 1998). Other researchershave found that although positive affect manip-ulations may enhance mood and reduce stateanxiety, they do not necessarily enhance diver-gent thinking (e.g., Clapham 2001).

Conflicting evidence comes from nonex-perimental settings, as well. George & Zhou(2002) found that, under certain specific con-ditions within an organization, negative af-fect can lead to higher creativity than positive

574 Hennessey · Amabile

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

010.

61:5

69-5

98. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Col

orad

o -

Bou

lder

on

10/0

8/12

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

Page 7: Creativity - Leeds School of Businessleeds-faculty.colorado.edu/dahe7472/amabile creativity review.pdf · creativity. That publication was supplemented in 1988 by the Creativity Research

ANRV398-PS61-22 ARI 5 November 2009 14:18

affect: the work context must call for high levelsof creativity, and the individual’s clarity of feel-ings must also be high. On the other hand, an-other organizational study (Madjar et al. 2002)found a generally positive role for positive affectin the workplace. In this study, positive moodmediated the significant positive relationshipbetween the support that employees receivedfor workplace creativity and their creative per-formance at work. Searching for more defini-tive answers, Amabile and colleagues (2005)obtained multiple daily measures of affect from222 employees in seven different companiesover several weeks, as well as multiple measuresof creativity. They found a positive linear re-lationship, with positive affect an antecedentof creativity. Another study (George & Zhou2007) also suggested a primacy for positive af-fect. In this study of employees in a single com-pany, creativity was highest when both positiveand negative moods were high and the super-visory context was supportive. However, thisstudy also found a positive main effect for pos-itive mood.

These opposing viewpoints and the datadriving them argue for more nuanced views ofthe impact of affect on cognitive activity. Intheir mood-as-input model, Martin and col-leagues (1993) proposed that positive moodssignal to individuals that they are safe, moti-vating them to seek stimulation and think ex-pansively, making more flexible associations.Negative moods signal that there are prob-lems at hand, motivating individuals to thinkprecisely and analytically. Similarly, the dual-tuning model proposed by George & Zhou(2007) asserts that employees should benefitcreatively by experiencing both positive andnegative moods over time in a supportive con-text. Positive mood leads to expansive, playful,divergent thinking and the generation of newideas. Negative mood signals that something isproblematic and pushes employees to try hardto improve matters through creative ideas—careful, systematic information processing. Theresult of both processes is good, well-thought-out ideas that are really creative. Some recentexperiments support these views of the different

supporting roles that positive and negative af-fect might play in the creative process (De Dreuet al. 2008, Friedman et al. 2007). Clearly, thequestion of the role of affect in creativity is notsettled. However, it appears likely that, all elsebeing equal, positive affect is more conduciveto creativity than is negative affect.

Cognition. A review of recent work focusedon the cognitive processes underlying creativeperformance reveals that this branch of the lit-erature is also particularly diverse. Recently, anentire volume of the Korean Journal of Thinkingand Problem Solving (Volume 18, 2008) offereda representative sample of the wide range ofexperimental and theoretical approaches beingtaken by researchers. The variety of investiga-tive paths is almost as great as the variety of ex-perimental questions being asked. For example,Kaufman & Baer (2002) employed both self-report and case-study methodologies to con-clude that the cognitive mechanisms underly-ing creative performance are domain specific,with the likely exception of g (a general intel-ligence factor). Kray and colleagues (2006) ex-plored what they termed a “relational process-ing style” elicited by counterfactual mind-sets.More specifically, they asked study participantsto compare reality to what might have been andin so doing encouraged them to consider rela-tionships and associations among stimuli. Theyfound that, although such mind-sets can bedetrimental to novel idea generation, they canimprove performance on creative associationtasks. Miller (2007) found a significant relationbetween field independence and creativity ona collage-making task. Necka (1999) presentedexperimental evidence linking creativity withimpaired functioning of what he termed the“filter of attention.” Groborz & Necka (2003)reported data arguing for the importance of“cognitive control” in the attentional process,and Zhengkui and colleagues (2007) provideda comprehensive review of the research oncreativity and attention.

A large body of research has pointed tothe importance of conceptual combination increative thought. Ward (2001) argued for a

www.annualreviews.org • Creativity 575

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

010.

61:5

69-5

98. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Col

orad

o -

Bou

lder

on

10/0

8/12

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

Page 8: Creativity - Leeds School of Businessleeds-faculty.colorado.edu/dahe7472/amabile creativity review.pdf · creativity. That publication was supplemented in 1988 by the Creativity Research

ANRV398-PS61-22 ARI 5 November 2009 14:18

“convergent approach” to the study of concep-tual combination—incorporating both anecdo-tal accounts and laboratory investigations ofthe creative process. Treffinger & Selby (2004)presented a rubric intended to characterize in-dividual differences in problem-solving styleinvolving Orientation to Change, Manner ofProcessing, and Ways of Deciding. And Scottet al. (2005) described an elegant experimentdesigned to compare and contrast an analogicalapproach to generating combinations (involv-ing feature search and mapping) with a case-based approach (integrating and elaborating onevent models). In summary, the literature link-ing cognitive processes and components to cre-ative behavior is plentiful but murky. PerhapsMumford & Antes (2007) best summarized thestate of the field when they called for cautionto be applied in any attempt to account for cre-ative achievement based on a single model ofthe kind of knowledge or cognitive processesinvolved.

Training. Armed with these new investiga-tions of the role of affect and cognition in thecreative process, are we any better equippedto train persons to be creative? When com-pared to the ongoing extensive investigativework on individual differences or affect and cre-ativity, studies of the efficacy of creativity train-ing have been relatively sparse. Svensson andcolleagues (2002) undertook three experimen-tal studies involving high school and universitystudents in Sweden. In one study, the efficacyof two creativity-enhancement techniques bor-rowed from the work of deBono, random wordinput and provocation, was investigated. In apretest/post-test design, it was found that post-training levels of fluency were lower, in fact, forthe experimental group than for a no-trainingcontrol group. The remaining two studies re-ported in this paper contrasted the effects ofworking individually or as a group. In both ofthese investigations, group work was found toproduce better results on various measures ofcreativity (fluency, flexibility, and originality),but total fluency was higher for study partici-pants working alone.

Interestingly, many of the more recent train-ing investigations have focused on populationsoutside the United States. For example,Basadur et al. (2002) reported that train-ing methods previously shown to be effec-tive in helping North American and Japaneseadults improve their divergent thinking skillswere also applicable to Spanish-speaking SouthAmerican managers. Arguing that training fordivergent thinking skills often involves a largenumber of moderated sessions, Benedek andcolleagues (2006) then set out to explorewhether a computer-based divergent thinkingtraining approach could effectively enhance theideational fluency and originality of Austrianadults through the provision of repeated prac-tice. A study comparing computer-based train-ing designed to promote creativity in the verbaldomain (e.g., generating nicknames and slo-gans) with computer training focused on cre-ative tasks not requiring verbal creativity (e.g.,coming up with unusual uses for objects) anda control (no training) group revealed signifi-cant training effects for both computer trainingapproaches. Study participants receiving train-ing showed significant gains in what the au-thors termed “intelligent-independent” aspectsof ideational fluency, but no training effectswere found for originality of ideas.

Focusing on insight problem solvingamong American adults, Dow & Mayer(2004) asked whether problem solution de-pends on domain-specific or domain-generalproblem-solving skills. Across two separateinvestigations, study participants who receivedtraining in spatial insight problems performedbetter than a verbal-insight-trained group onspatial problems. However, no other perfor-mance differences emerged between subjectsreceiving verbal, mathematical, spatial, orverbal-spatial training who were later asked tosolve insight problems in these four categorygroups. Garaigordobil (2006) also explored theefficacy of training, this time with a sampleof Spanish children. There was a positiveeffect of the intervention, with childrenmaking significant improvements in verbalcreativity (originality) and graphic-figural

576 Hennessey · Amabile

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

010.

61:5

69-5

98. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Col

orad

o -

Bou

lder

on

10/0

8/12

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

Page 9: Creativity - Leeds School of Businessleeds-faculty.colorado.edu/dahe7472/amabile creativity review.pdf · creativity. That publication was supplemented in 1988 by the Creativity Research

ANRV398-PS61-22 ARI 5 November 2009 14:18

creativity relative to a control/no-interventiongroup.

Is it possible to generalize about the efficacyof well-designed creativity training attempts?Scott and colleagues (2004) believe so. Theseresearchers carried out a quantitative, meta-analytic review of 70 prior studies and foundthat carefully constructed creativity trainingprograms typically result in gains in per-formance, with these benefits generalizingacross criteria, setting, and target population.Delving deeper, these authors found that themore successful training programs tend to em-ploy realistic exercises that focus on the devel-opment of cognitive skills and heuristics for theapplication of those skills.

Individual Differences/Personality

The empirical study of creativity was originallyfocused at the level of the individual, and manyrecent contributions to the literature continueto explore the question of what distinguisheshighly creative persons from the rest of us.Research and theorizing in the area of creativityhas much in common with studies of personal-ity, as both fields concentrate on uniqueness.An extensive literature review focused on thepersonality and individual difference variablescommon to highly creative persons reveals thatmany things seem to be true of at least somecreative people but not necessarily all of them.In other words, this body of work is especiallydifficult to decipher, although a meta-analysiscarried out by Feist (1998) highlighting person-ality differences between scientific and artisticcreators has proven helpful in this regard.

The Big Five model of personality continuesto shape investigations in this area, and a gooddeal of research attention has also been paidto the traits labeled “openness to experience”and “latent inhibition.” Low levels of latent in-hibition, associated with the inability to shutout the constant stream of incoming stimuli,have been found to predict trait creativity (e.g.,Carson et al. 2003). Trait creativity has alsobeen linked to high levels of openness to experi-ence (e.g., McCrae 1987, Perrine & Brodersen

Trait creativity:creativity viewed as arelatively stableindividual-differencevariable

2005), and at least two investigations haveshown a negative correlation between latent in-hibition and openness to experience (Peterson& Carson 2000, Peterson et al. 2002). Amabileet al. (1994) were among the first to explore alink between creativity and trait-intrinsic mo-tivation, describing it as the drive to engage inwork out of interest, enjoyment, and personalchallenge. Although most of the literature link-ing motivational orientation with creativity hasfocused on intrinsic motivation as a situation-specific state, interesting recent work by Prabhuand colleagues (2008) confirmed that intrinsicmotivation is also an enduring personality traitwith a positive relation to creativity. There hasalso been ongoing interest in the developmentaltrajectory of a variety of other personality traitslinked to creativity, with work done by Helsonand colleagues continuing to dominate in thisarea (Helson & Pals 2000, Helson & Srivastava2002).

Case studies published in American Psychol-ogist (April 2001) revealed just how difficult theattempt to identify individual difference vari-ables essential for creativity has proven to be.In a follow-up discussion of individual differ-ences and creativity (American Psychologist, May2002), a second set of papers argued for the cen-tral importance of a sense of curiosity (Kashdan& Fincham 2002) and self-confidence for cre-ative behavior. Lower levels of self-confidencemay actually predict higher levels of creativity(Kaufman 2002).

Individual Differences in Intelligence. Indi-vidual differences in intelligence were exploredby Feist & Barron (2003) as they traced thedevelopmental trajectories of creative personsand placed particular emphasis on the stabil-ity/instability of intelligence and intellectualgiftedness. Similarly, James & Asmus (2001) ex-amined the interface between personality andcognitive ability as they attempted to betterunderstand sources of creativity within the in-dividual. Although some researchers and the-orists have found important parallels betweenthe investigation of creativity and giftedness(Hennessey 2004), research tells us that these

www.annualreviews.org • Creativity 577

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

010.

61:5

69-5

98. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Col

orad

o -

Bou

lder

on

10/0

8/12

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

Page 10: Creativity - Leeds School of Businessleeds-faculty.colorado.edu/dahe7472/amabile creativity review.pdf · creativity. That publication was supplemented in 1988 by the Creativity Research

ANRV398-PS61-22 ARI 5 November 2009 14:18

two constructs should not be equated. Winner(2000) and Runco (1999) found that the skillsand personality factors required to be a cre-ator are very different from those typical ofhighly gifted children. And taking a differentapproach, Sternberg (2001) argued that creativ-ity is best understood in terms of its dialecticalrelation to intelligence and wisdom. Accord-ing to this formulation, intelligence is most of-ten used to advance existing societal agendas,whereas creative thinking often opposes theseagendas and proposes new ones. Wise peoplerecognize the need to strike a balance betweenintelligence and creativity/the old and the newto achieve both stability and change within asocietal context.

Gender Differences. Gender differences alsocontinued to garner research attention, withmixed results. Ai (1999) investigated the rela-tion between creativity and academic achieve-ment in Spanish secondary students and showedthat when operationalized by teachers’ ratings,creativity was related to academic achievementfor both males and females. For males, flexi-bility was the predominant factor. For females,elaboration and fluency played a significantrole. In a related investigation again involvingadolescents, Jiliang & Baoguo (2007) found nogender differences in scientific creativity on rat-ings of fluency or flexibility, but on originality,high school males significantly outperformedfemales. In addition, male scores on figural taskswere significantly higher than female scores.One possible explanation for these gender dif-ferences comes from Conti and coinvestigators(2001), who found that boys and girls react verydifferently to situations of extrinsic constraint.In situations involving competition, boys whohad been segregated by gender reported signifi-cantly higher levels of both intrinsic and extrin-sic motivation than did girls who had also beensegregated by gender. Finally, Lee (2002) foundthat for college students completing problem-solving and problem-finding tasks, neither gen-der nor education exerted significant influenceon creative thinking abilities in real-lifesituations.

Psychopathology. Psychopathology and theage-old question of whether there exists asystematic relation between creativity andmental illness continue to loom large in theliterature. Becker (2001) and Sass (2001)examined how specific intellectual assumptionshave, over time, transformed into a widelyheld belief that precludes the possibility oftotal mental health and sanity for the cre-ative genius. Rothenberg (2006) also madea strong case for the fact that the literaturelinking creativity and mental illness is severelyflawed. Despite these protestations, there issubstantial research evidence of a link betweenpsychopathology, most especially schizotypy,and creative behavior. Prentky (2001) founda greater-than-chance probability that highlycreative individuals will evidence signs orsymptoms of mental illness and proposed thatcertain biologically based cognitive styles thatare peculiar to extraordinary creativity possesscommon biological ancestry with anothergroup of cognitive styles that are associatedwith a predisposition to major mental illness.Other studies, using nonclinical populations,have found similar associations (e.g., Abraham& Windmann 2008, Cox & Leon 1999).

However, Chavez-Eakle and colleagues(2006) observed that highly creative achieversscored especially low on psychopathology andthat psychopathology was more related to per-sonality than to creativity. In another study fo-cused on psychiatric patients, Ghadirian andcolleagues (2001) reported no difference in thecreative abilities of persons with bipolar illnessas compared to those with other types of psy-chopathology. In an attempt to synthesize thiswork, Nettle (2006) suggested that these find-ings might be explained by a sort of “hybrid”model whereby schizotypal personality traitscan have fitness advantages or disadvantages,with mutational load and neurodevelopmentalconditions determining which outcome (pro-motion or hindrance of creativity) is observed.

Groups and Teams

Investigations of creative behavior and thecreative process have, over time, shown a

578 Hennessey · Amabile

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

010.

61:5

69-5

98. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Col

orad

o -

Bou

lder

on

10/0

8/12

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

Page 11: Creativity - Leeds School of Businessleeds-faculty.colorado.edu/dahe7472/amabile creativity review.pdf · creativity. That publication was supplemented in 1988 by the Creativity Research

ANRV398-PS61-22 ARI 5 November 2009 14:18

progression from attention to the individual toa focus on the creative performance of groups.In recent years, much of the theorizing andresearch surrounding the creative process hasbeen targeted at this group level, and there aremany important parallels between this workand the creativity training literature reviewedabove. Continued and widespread interest inthe question of whether creative thinking andproblem solving can be trained is clearly dueto the fact that in most organizational settingsrequiring innovative product development andproblem solutions, workers are expected to be-come increasingly creative as they collaboratein project teams. The organizational literatureis presented in a later section. Here the focus ison more general studies of creativity in groups.

Over the past decade, research on creativ-ity within groups has undergone a significantshift—away from the simplistic conclusion thatindividuals can almost always be expected tooutperform groups toward a far more nuancedunderstanding of the group process and a fine-tuning of experimental design as well as modelsof group interaction, motivation, and disposi-tion. Much remains unknown about the creativeprocess within groups, but significant progresshas been made. In two separate investigations,a comparison of students working alone or in agroup revealed that although group work pro-duced better results on various measures of cre-ativity, fluency scores were higher for individu-als working alone (Svensson et al. 2002). In fact,research on creative problem solving (Osborn1953, 1957, 1963, 1967; Parnes 1966; Treffin-ger & Isaksen 1992; Treffinger et al. 2006) typi-cally shows that the performance of individualsis generally superior to that of groups. But someinvestigators have speculated that this pattern ofresults may have been driven by the specific ex-perimental tasks, concepts, and research meth-ods employed. Brophy (1998a,b) proposed a“tri-level matching theory” as a way of integrat-ing and explaining contradictory experimentalfindings. He pointed out that creatively solvableproblems vary considerably in their complex-ity, requisite knowledge base, and the amountsof divergent and convergent thinking that are

Convergentthinking: moredisciplined thinking,focused on narrowingpossibilities to aworkable solution

needed. This model emphasized the fact that acomplete creative problem-solving process en-tails both considerable convergent and diver-gent thought in continuing alternation, and itpredicted that individuals, teams, and entire or-ganizations with different preferences and abil-ities, knowledge, and work arrangements wouldbe good matches for some problems and poormatches for others. Brophy (2006) later foundempirical support for this model. In the samevein, Larey & Paulus (1999) found that brain-storming groups performed better when theirmembers were assigned to the groups based ontheir preferences for working and interactingin groups. Paulus & Yang (2000) discoveredtwo important factors that enabled idea sharingin groups to become more productive: (a) theextent to which group members carefully pro-cessed the ideas exchanged in the group (atten-tion) and (b) the opportunity for group mem-bers to reflect on the ideas after the exchangeprocess (incubation).

Increasingly, research, theory, and appliedwork on group creativity has merged with andrelied on the use of computers. Brown & Paulus(2002) argued that group brainstorming canbe an effective technique for generating cre-ative ideas, based on computer simulations ofan associative memory model of idea gener-ation in groups. Also working from a cogni-tive/computer modeling perspective, Nijstad &Stroebe (2006) offered the SIAM model (Searchfor Ideas in Associative Memory), which theybelieve could account for various research find-ings on group idea generation. This model as-sumes that idea generation is a repeated searchfor ideas in associative memory, which proceedsin two stages (knowledge activation and ideaproduction) and is controlled through nega-tive feedback loops and cognitive failures (tri-als in which no idea is generated). This for-mulation showed that turn taking (productionblocking) interfered with both stages of theprocess. Ideas suggested by others aided theactivation of problem-relevant knowledge, andcognitive failures were important negative de-terminants of brainstorming persistence, sat-isfaction, and enjoyment. The different ways

www.annualreviews.org • Creativity 579

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

010.

61:5

69-5

98. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Col

orad

o -

Bou

lder

on

10/0

8/12

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

Page 12: Creativity - Leeds School of Businessleeds-faculty.colorado.edu/dahe7472/amabile creativity review.pdf · creativity. That publication was supplemented in 1988 by the Creativity Research

ANRV398-PS61-22 ARI 5 November 2009 14:18

that computers can be involved in creative workwere further examined in a special issue of theInternational Journal of Human-Computer Stud-ies (2007, volume 63), where the contributingauthors concluded that computers may facili-tate not only communication between personscollaborating on creative projects but alsothe management of creative work, the useof creativity-enhancement techniques, andthe creative act through integrated human-computer cooperation during idea production.

Creativity in Workplace Groups. There hasbeen a general acknowledgment that most cre-ative work that gets done in organizations is ac-complished by two or more individuals workingclosely together (see Thompson & Choi 2006).Thus, although our section on organizationalcreativity appears later in this article, we reviewthis part of the literature here. (As we notedin the introduction, the neatly nonoverlappingnature of the concentric circles in Figure 1 isa convenient artifice.) One study in the comicbook industry uncovered evidence that simplyworking in a team can, under the right cir-cumstances, produce more creative results thanworking individually (Taylor & Greve 2006).On average, single creators had lower perfor-mance than did teams, and the team experienceof working together increased performance.Hargadon & Bechky (2006) did a qualitativestudy of six professional service firms to iden-tify behaviors leading to “moments of collec-tive creativity.” They identified four sets of in-terrelated behavior patterns that moved teamsbeyond individuals’ insights: (a) help seeking,(b) help giving, (c) reflective reframing, and(d ) reinforcing.

Taggar (2002) studied some facilitative teamprocesses, examining the performance of 94groups on 13 different open-ended tasks.At the individual-team-member level, domainknowledge and performance-relevant behav-ioral measures of the three components ofAmabile’s (1983, 1996) model of individ-ual creativity related in predicted ways toindividual differences. Support was foundfor new cross-level processes, labeled “team

creativity-relevant processes.” At the grouplevel, these processes moderated the relation-ship between aggregated individual creativityand group creativity.

Work Group Diversity. Research on diversityhas been one of the more active areas in orga-nizational creativity scholarship over the pastdecade. Most of this work has focused on di-versity in teams. Kurtzberg & Amabile (2001)suggested that the types and amount of teamconflict that arise from the diversity of teammembers might be particularly influential inaffecting outcomes. Two empirical studies ex-ploring diversity (Kurtzberg 2005) comparedand contrasted objectively measured creativefluency and subjectively perceived creativityin cognitively diverse teams. Results indicatedthat, although cognitive diversity may be ben-eficial for objective functioning, it may bedetrimental to team satisfaction, affect, andmembers’ impressions of their own creativeperformance.

Indeed, a recent review of the literature onthis topic suggests that team diversity can just aseasily lead to negative as to positive outcomes.Mannix & Neale (2005) conducted a review of50 years of research and concluded that thepreponderance of evidence yields a pessimisticview: Group diversity creates social divisions,with negative performance consequences. Theauthors suggest that more positive effects, suchas creativity, can arise from underlying differ-ences such as functional background, educa-tion, or personality—but only when the groupprocess is managed carefully.

Polzer and colleagues (2002) studied oneapproach to managing group process that canyield creative benefits under team diversity: in-terpersonal congruence, the degree to whichgroup members see others in the group as thoseothers see themselves. This longitudinal studyof 83 work groups revealed that diversity (onsex, ethnicity, and other dimensions) tended toimprove creative task performance in groupswith high interpersonal congruence but un-dermined the performance of groups with lowinterpersonal congruence. Surprisingly, some

580 Hennessey · Amabile

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

010.

61:5

69-5

98. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Col

orad

o -

Bou

lder

on

10/0

8/12

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

Page 13: Creativity - Leeds School of Businessleeds-faculty.colorado.edu/dahe7472/amabile creativity review.pdf · creativity. That publication was supplemented in 1988 by the Creativity Research

ANRV398-PS61-22 ARI 5 November 2009 14:18

diverse groups were able to achieve enoughinterpersonal congruence during their first10 minutes of interaction to enable better groupoutcomes four months later.

The Social Psychology of Creativity

Previous research has firmly established that thesocial environment can significantly influencean individual’s motivation for doing an activity,which in turn can significantly influence cre-ative performance. This is the intrinsic motiva-tion principle of creativity: Intrinsic motivation,defined as the drive to do something for thesheer enjoyment, interest, and personal chal-lenge of the task itself (rather than for some ex-ternal goal), is conducive to creativity, whereasextrinsic motivation is generally detrimental.Probing further, experimentalists have deter-mined that a variety of extrinsic constraints andextrinsic motivators can undermine intrinsicmotivation and creativity, including expectedreward, expected evaluation, surveillance, com-petition, and restricted choice. Investigators ex-amining the social psychology of creativity havefound that intrinsic motivation for a particu-lar task can be ephemeral and, thus, quite sus-ceptible to social-environmental influences. Infact, the undermining effect of extrinsic con-straints is so robust that it has been found tooccur across the entire lifespan, with preschool-ers and seasoned professionals experiencing thesame negative consequences of expected rewardand other extrinsic motivators and constraints.(For a review of this research, see Amabile 1996;see also Hennessey 2003.)

Two recent nonexperimental studies in or-ganizations also support the intrinsic motiva-tion principle of creativity. Shin & Zhou (2003)found that the intrinsic motivation of Koreanhigh-tech employees partially explained theircreativity. Another study, using survey datafrom 165 employees and their supervisors whoworked in research and development in a largeU.S. organization, assessed employee intrin-sic motivation and willingness to take risks,along with supervisor-rated creativity (Dewett2007). Results showed that “one fundamental

antecedent to employee creativity is intrinsicinterest in one’s work” (p. 204). Interestingly,willingness to take risks mediated the effect ofintrinsic motivation on employee creativity.

When investigations of the effects of ex-trinsic constraints began about 30 years ago,it was thought that the determinants of task-motivational orientation were straightforward.Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation were be-lieved to interact in a sort of hydraulic fash-ion. High levels of extrinsic motivation werethought to preclude high levels of intrinsic mo-tivation; as extrinsic motivators and constraintswere imposed, intrinsic motivation (and cre-ativity) would necessarily decrease. Now, manyyears and hundreds of investigations later, mostresearchers taking a social-psychological ap-proach to the study of creativity have come toappreciate the many complexities of both mo-tivational orientation and extrinsic motivators,particularly expected reward. They have cometo supplement the original hydraulic concep-tualization with an additive model that recog-nizes that under certain specific conditions, theexpectation of reward can sometimes increaselevels of extrinsic motivation without havingany negative impact on intrinsic motivation orperformance. Specifically, rewards undermineintrinsic motivation and creativity when theylead people to feel controlled by the situation—that is, when self-determination is undermined(see Deci & Ryan 2002, Ryan & Deci 2000).However, rewards can actually enhance intrin-sic motivation and creativity when they con-firm competence, provide useful information ina supportive way, or enable people to do some-thing that they were already intrinsically mo-tivated to do. These boosting effects are mostlikely when initial levels of intrinsic motivationare already strong (Amabile 1993).

Some researchers trained in the behavior-ist tradition have offered the strongly con-trasting view that creativity can be easily in-creased by reward and is seldom undermined.These scholars, most notably Eisenberger,Cameron, and colleagues (Cameron & Pierce1994; Eisenberger & Cameron 1996, 1998;Eisenberger & Selbst 1994), maintain that any

www.annualreviews.org • Creativity 581

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

010.

61:5

69-5

98. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Col

orad

o -

Bou

lder

on

10/0

8/12

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

Page 14: Creativity - Leeds School of Businessleeds-faculty.colorado.edu/dahe7472/amabile creativity review.pdf · creativity. That publication was supplemented in 1988 by the Creativity Research

ANRV398-PS61-22 ARI 5 November 2009 14:18

detrimental effects of reward occur only underlimited conditions that can be easily avoided. Adebate over these issues surfaced in the litera-ture in the mid 1990s, prompting researchersand theorists on both sides of the argument topublish a series of heated commentaries, cri-tiques, and replies (see Eisenberger & Cameron1996, 1998; Hennessey & Amabile 1998;Lepper 1998; Sansone & Harackiewicz 1998).At the core of this debate were important dif-ferences in the definitions of creativity drivinginvestigations, the algorithmic or heuristic na-ture of the experimental tasks employed, andthe instructions given to study participants.

Studies influenced by the behaviorist tradi-tion have typically used dependent measuresthat equate creativity with novelty, and haveoften instructed participants to be creative(sometimes with details on the kinds of re-sponses that would receive high creativityratings). As Eisenberger & Shanock (2003)themselves point out, “Behaviorists have beencareful to make sure the reward recipientsunderstand that reward depends on novel per-formance” (p. 124). O’Hara & Sternberg (2001)specifically examined the effects of directivesto “be creative.” Precise instructions to be cre-ative, practical, or analytical resulted in collegestudents demonstrating higher levels of perfor-mance in whichever of the three areas had beentargeted. These findings suggest that results ofthe behaviorist studies demonstrate positive ef-fects of instructions, rather than positive effectsof expected rewards, on creativity. Other ex-perimental research also calls into question thepurported ease of enhancing creativity throughuse of reward ( Joussemet & Koestner 1999).

Despite results such as these, inconsistentwith the assertion that expected rewards gener-ally foster creativity, the debate has continuedthrough much of the past decade. Perhaps as re-search programs and the theories they generatebecome increasingly nuanced, this rift betweenthe two philosophical camps may narrow. In themeantime, researchers and theorists studyingthe social psychology of creativity have madegood progress in expanding their investigativeparadigms and theoretical perspectives. No

longer do the variables of interest include onlyexpected reward or other extrinsic motivatorsand constraints. Rather, they have expandedto include a wide range of social influencesand processes. In addition, theoretical per-spectives have broadened far beyond those ofsocial and personality psychology. For example,Mouchiroud & Lubart (2002) studied the devel-opment of social creativity (original solutionsto interpersonal problems) in children, andPerry-Smith (2006) studied the effects of socialnetworks on creativity in an organizationalsetting.

Social Environment: Organizations

Scholars of organizations, many of whom aretrained research psychologists, have increas-ingly turned their attention to creativity in theworkplace. In the concentric circle rubric pre-sented at the beginning of this review, the studyof organizational creativity falls in the “socialenvironment” circle. Although much researchin this arena does focus on the work environ-ment, a meaningful proportion of this liter-ature considers more microscopic levels, in-cluding individual-difference studies and evensome physiological studies. In recent years,a number of good reviews of this literaturehave been published, including those by promi-nent organizational creativity scholars JenniferGeorge, Christina Shalley, Jing Zhou, and GregOldham (George 2007, Shalley et al. 2004,Shalley & Zhou 2008). In addition, two recentedited volumes address organizational creativ-ity (Thompson & Choi 2006, Zhou & Shalley2008).

To some extent, the organizational creativ-ity literature mirrors the creativity literature ingeneral psychology. However, the greatest vol-ume of work—and the most significant work interms of application—concerns the social psy-chology of creativity. This work focuses primar-ily on the impact of the social environment orthe work environment (generally as created byleaders or managers) on the creativity of indi-viduals, groups, or entire organizations. Someresearch has even examined support for workcreativity outside of the workplace.

582 Hennessey · Amabile

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

010.

61:5

69-5

98. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Col

orad

o -

Bou

lder

on

10/0

8/12

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

Page 15: Creativity - Leeds School of Businessleeds-faculty.colorado.edu/dahe7472/amabile creativity review.pdf · creativity. That publication was supplemented in 1988 by the Creativity Research

ANRV398-PS61-22 ARI 5 November 2009 14:18

Social Behaviors Supporting Creativity. Afew studies have investigated particular behav-iors of other people that support (or under-mine) individuals’ creativity in organizations.Team leader behavior was examined in micro-scopic detail in a longitudinal field study byAmabile and colleagues (2004). This study firstestablished that perceived team leader supportpositively related to the peer-rated creativity of211 individuals working on creative projects inseven companies. Qualitative analyses of the in-dividuals’ daily work diaries over several weeksrevealed both positive and negative predictorsof perceived leader support, in terms of specificleader behaviors. Positive predictors includedshowing support for the person’s actions ordecisions, providing constructive feedback onthe work, and recognizing good performance.Negative predictors included checking on as-signed work too frequently, failing to dissemi-nate needed information, and avoiding solvingproblems.

The valuing of creative work is some-thing that leaders of an organization do (ordo not) communicate. Farmer and colleagues(2003) found that individuals’ creativity at workwas highest when they both perceived them-selves as creative employees and perceived theirorganizations as valuing creative work. Cre-ativity at work can even be supported by thebehavior of important others outside of work.Madjar and colleagues (2002) found that thecreative performance of employees was signif-icantly related to support for creativity fromboth work (supervisors/coworkers) and non-work (family/friends) sources. Positive moodmediated these relations.

Specific Aspects of the Work Environment.Of all specific aspects of the work environ-ment, time pressure has perhaps received themost research attention recently from organi-zational psychologists studying creativity. Stud-ies searching for simple linear relations havegenerally found no relation or weak nega-tive relations (Amabile et al. 1996, 2002), in-dicating that, overall, time pressure may bedetrimental to creativity at work. However, it

appears that this is an oversimplification. In-deed, the influence of time pressure may beone of the most complex in the organizationalcreativity literature. For one thing, traits mayplay a role in people’s response to time pres-sure at work, as demonstrated in an experimentby Madjar & Oldham (2006). Polychronicityis an individual-difference variable: the num-ber of tasks with which an individual prefers tobe involved at the same time. Participants ex-hibited higher creativity in the task conditionthat matched their individual preference, andperceived time pressure mediated these effects.Individuals perceived lower time pressurein conditions that matched their preference,which then contributed to higher levels ofcreativity.

Baer & Oldham (2006) showed that thelevel of time pressure matters, in a some-what complicated person-by-situation interac-tion. They discovered an inverted-U relationbetween time pressure and creativity for em-ployees who scored high on the personality traitof openness to experience while simultaneouslyreceiving support for creativity. This inverted-U relation was essentially replicated by Ohlyand coauthors (2006), who controlled for su-pervisory support for creativity but did not as-sess personality. Amabile and coauthors (2002)carried out a longitudinal field study suggest-ing that daily workplace creativity may dependon both the level and the type of time pres-sure. In general, the effects of time pressure oncreativity were negative. However, the type oftime pressure was important. Most high-time-pressure days were marked by fragmentationin the work and lack of focus on single impor-tant problems. But if individuals were protectedfrom distractions and fragmentation under hightime pressure, and if they believed in the im-portance of the problem they were trying tosolve, creativity was enhanced. In fact, on such(relatively rare) high-time-pressure days, cre-ativity could be as high as on low/moderate-time-pressure days.

Psychological safety, an environmental con-dition in which people believe that others intheir group will respond positively when they

www.annualreviews.org • Creativity 583

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

010.

61:5

69-5

98. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Col

orad

o -

Bou

lder

on

10/0

8/12

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

Page 16: Creativity - Leeds School of Businessleeds-faculty.colorado.edu/dahe7472/amabile creativity review.pdf · creativity. That publication was supplemented in 1988 by the Creativity Research

ANRV398-PS61-22 ARI 5 November 2009 14:18

speak up about concerns, report mistakes, orpropose new ideas, is another work environ-ment aspect that can be important in organiza-tional creativity. Edmondson & Mogelof (2006)proposed that psychological safety is crucialfor creativity in organizations because creativ-ity involves so much risk-taking, experimenta-tion, and frequent failure. In a study using datacollected at three points in time from teamsworking on complex projects, these researchersfound that individual-level and team-level vari-ables at a particular time predicted psycholog-ical safety at a later time, but that team-levelvariables accounted for considerably more vari-ance. Positive interactions within the team andwith the team leader were important, as wasclarity of goals for the project (particularly to-ward the end of the project). Another study, in-volving 43 new product teams composed of di-verse functions (e.g., research and development,marketing, and manufacturing), found that theeffect of task disagreement on team innovative-ness depended on how free members felt toexpress task-related doubts and how collabo-ratively or contentiously these doubts were ex-pressed (Lovelace et al. 2001). Gibson & Gibbs(2006) found that a psychologically safe com-munication climate can help mitigate severalchallenges faced by virtual teams attempting toproduce innovative outcomes.

Autonomy in the work, leading employeesto feel a degree of empowerment, has longbeen postulated as an important feature ofthe work environment for fostering creativity.The theoretical argument is that to the extentthat employees feel a degree of ownershipin and control over their work, they will bemore intrinsically motivated and thus morelikely to fully engage their cognitive processesin solving problems in the work. Alge andcolleagues (2006), in two studies, found aconnection between empowerment and cre-ativity: Organizations that respect the privacyof employees’ personal information enhanceemployee perceptions of empowerment, whichin turn enhances employee creativity.

Feedback, monitoring of work, and evalua-tion of work are closely related and can have

quite different effects on creativity dependingon how they are delivered. In a chapter review-ing a great deal of empirical research, Zhou(2008) presented a summary of how feedbackcan affect creativity. She suggested that super-visors can affect employee creativity positivelyby (a) giving positive feedback whenever pos-sible; (b) delivering both positive and negativefeedback in an informational style (with the su-pervisor suggesting that the goal of the feedbackis not to control the employee, but instead tohelp the employee develop creative capabilitiesand performance); (c) adopting a developmen-tal orientation when giving feedback—givingemployees valuable information that will en-able them to learn, develop, and make improve-ments on the job, implying that they can con-stantly get better; and (d ) focusing feedback onthe task, not the person.

Organizational creativity scholars have alsostudied the environmental condition of goalsetting. General studies of the work environ-ment (e.g., Amabile et al. 1996) suggest thatclear overall goals for work projects supportcreativity. However, Shalley has carried out asystematic research program to examine the ef-fects of setting specific creativity goals—a topicthat others have recently investigated as well. Ina review chapter on supervisory goal-setting re-search, Shalley (2008) suggested, “if managerswould like their employees to be more creative,they need to find ways to encourage employeesto undertake creative activities. A major way todo this is by creating role expectations eitherby setting goals or making creative activity ajob requirement. Further, organizations needto make sure that the work context supportsthese goals or job requirements. . .” (p. 160).

Although goal setting might be viewed asa kind of constraint on creativity, other re-searchers have taken up the question of con-straints much more directly, by studying theeffects of external demands on workplace cre-ativity. In a review chapter, West and coauthors(2005) defined external demands on a workgroup as crises or severe constraints that comefrom the external environment within the or-ganization or the wider society and impinge on

584 Hennessey · Amabile

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

010.

61:5

69-5

98. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Col

orad

o -

Bou

lder

on

10/0

8/12

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

Page 17: Creativity - Leeds School of Businessleeds-faculty.colorado.edu/dahe7472/amabile creativity review.pdf · creativity. That publication was supplemented in 1988 by the Creativity Research

ANRV398-PS61-22 ARI 5 November 2009 14:18

the individual or team attempting to do cre-ative or innovative work. These authors, likemost in the field, see creativity as the gener-ation of new and useful ideas, with innova-tion being the implementation of creative ideas.They suggest that because creativity requiresa nonconstrained, undemanding environment,external demands have a negative impact ongroup creativity. However, because external de-mands can positively influence group processessuch as cohesion, task focus, and clarity of teamobjectives, demands can have a positive im-pact on group innovation. Thus, it is impor-tant for managers to understand the stage ofthe creativity-innovation process in consider-ing the imposition of demands on a team.

In summary, it appears that constraints andpressures in the work environment (except forone rare form of time pressure) are detri-mental to creativity, whereas organization-widesupports, psychological safety, sufficient time,autonomy, developmental feedback, and cre-ativity goals are facilitative.

Social Environment: Schools

In addition to the workplace, the other obvi-ous setting for the real-world application of thesocial psychology of creativity literature is theclassroom. Although creative performance maynot be as central or universal a goal in schools asit is in the business world, the development ofstudent creativity is crucial for economic, scien-tific, social, and artistic/cultural advancement.It is essential that we come to a far deeper under-standing of how teaching techniques, teacherbehavior, and social relationships in schools af-fect the motivation and creativity of students.Sternberg (2008) offered a thoughtful paperarguing for the application of psychologicaltheories to educational practice, yet a reviewof the recent educational literature reveals sur-prisingly few direct investigations of creativ-ity in the classroom. Plucker and colleagues(2004) reviewed the literature and concludedthat a preponderance of myths and stereotypesabout creativity as well as a failure to preciselydefine creativity has served to strangle most

Innovation: thesuccessfulimplementation ofcreative ideas

research efforts on the part of educators. A re-cent paper by Sawyer (2006) painted a similarlybleak picture. Sawyer contended that Americaneducational researchers have paid very littlescholarly attention to the fact that the major-ity of the world’s most developed countries, in-cluding the United States, have now made ashift from an industrial economy to an economythat is knowledge based. According to Sawyer(2006), many features of today’s schools havebecome obsolete—to the point that the U.S.educational system needs to be entirely restruc-tured around disciplined improvisational groupprocesses and creative collaboration. Essentialto this restructuring will be carefully controlledempirical research investigations designed tohelp educators determine which educational in-novations actually promote student creativityand why.

How are researchers to carry out such in-vestigations? If the results warrant it, howare they to convince policy makers that thetime has come for fundamental school change?How are they to convince educators that thepromotion of student creativity is a desirablegoal? A study carried out by Scott (1999) in-vestigated attitudes held by elementary schoolteachers and college students about creativechildren. Results showed that teachers were sig-nificantly more likely than college students torate creative children as more disruptive thantheir more “average” peers. In fact, this biasagainst unique answers or problem solutionswas even found in a sample of prospective teach-ers who had yet to head up their own classroom(Beghetto 2007). In U.S. schools, creativity isnot always seen as a desirable trait. Yet at leasta small body of research into the psychology ofeducational creativity exists.

Ruscio & Amabile (1999) explored the im-pact of two different instructional approacheson the creative problem solving of college stu-dents. Study participants completed a novelstructure-building task after receiving algorith-mic instruction, heuristic instruction, or noinstruction. Type of instruction influenced stu-dents’ perceptions of the task, their behaviorduring the task, and their final solution to the

www.annualreviews.org • Creativity 585

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

010.

61:5

69-5

98. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Col

orad

o -

Bou

lder

on

10/0

8/12

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

Page 18: Creativity - Leeds School of Businessleeds-faculty.colorado.edu/dahe7472/amabile creativity review.pdf · creativity. That publication was supplemented in 1988 by the Creativity Research

ANRV398-PS61-22 ARI 5 November 2009 14:18

structure problem. Study participants receivingalgorithmic instruction showed greater confi-dence and speed, but they were significantlyless likely than students receiving heuristic in-struction to engage in exploratory behavior orto produce final products that deviated from thesample structure.

Researchers in Great Britain have recentlycontributed a small number of important em-pirical investigations of creativity in the class-room. Focusing on the creativity of youngstudents, Cremin and collaborators (2006) re-ported findings of a 12-month-long investi-gation of children’s “possibility thinking” andtheir teachers’ pedagogical practices that fos-ter this important component of creative be-havior. In another longitudinal study, Claxtonet al. (2005) followed the developmental trendsin creativity from the period of the so-calledfourth-grade slump through the ninth-gradeyear. And in a related paper, Claxton and col-leagues (2006) made the argument that Britishschools must move from “allowing” creativ-ity to developing creativity in the classroom. Insupport of this position, these researchers of-fered practical examples from action researchprojects designed to develop “habits of mind”conducive to creativity.

The fact that, in recent years, relatively fewinvestigators and theorists in the industrializednations of the West have chosen to explore cre-ativity in the classroom stands in striking con-trast to the research situation in other partsof the world. In fact, a review of the litera-ture reveals a virtual explosion of interest inthis area—especially in Asia. Consider the ex-ample of Singapore. For more than 20 years,the nation of Singapore has made the fosteringof creativity in the schools a top priority (seeTan & Law 2000). In the past decade, Tan andcolleagues have conducted many empirical in-vestigations of creativity in the classrooms ofSingapore. In a 2000 paper, Tan explored stu-dents’ and teachers’ perceptions of activitiesuseful for fostering creativity and found that asstudents grow older, their views begin to moreclosely reflect those of their teachers; these datawere then supplemented with a second paper

(Tan & Law 2002). Tan & Rasidir (2006) in-vestigated children’s views of the behaviors theybelieve make for a creative teacher. Also focusedon students in Singapore was an empirical in-vestigation carried out by Majid and colleagues(2003). This study contrasted the efficacy of theInternet and SCAMPER (Eberle 1997), a well-known technique based on the presentation ofdirected questions, in promoting the creativ-ity of primary school children. Results revealedthat students who used Internet resources tar-geting children’s writing skills demonstratedimprovement in their creative writing in termsof both fluency and elaboration. Children us-ing SCAMPER did not show any obviousimprovements.

Two studies considered Japanese educa-tional approaches and their possible impact oncreativity. DeCoker (2000) looked at U.S. edu-cation through the eyes of Japanese teachers.Twenty-four Japanese teachers visited a U.S.school for one month. Their unanimous con-clusion was that schools in America were farstricter, discipline was far more punitive, andclassrooms were far more rule bound, thanin Japan. When it came to creativity in theseschools, these visitors worried most about thestrict grading policies in force at the high schoollevel. In sum, DeCoker (2000) concluded thatalthough the majority of Americans assume thatJapanese schools are strict (and that Americanschools are undisciplined), in the eyes of thesevisitors, the American system runs the riskof being far too rigid, making student (andteacher) creativity an impossibility.

The research, theory, and applied workcoming out of Mainland China and Hong Konghave been especially prolific and illuminating.Hongli (2004) asked the provocative questionof why no Nobel Prize winner has ever beenthe product of the Chinese educational systemand extracted from the literature a number ofsuggested strategies for nurturing the creativityof Chinese primary and middle school students.Huang and collaborators (2005) explored theimplicit theories of creativity held by Chineseteachers and found that those attitudes playedan important role in how teachers worked to

586 Hennessey · Amabile

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

010.

61:5

69-5

98. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Col

orad

o -

Bou

lder

on

10/0

8/12

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

Page 19: Creativity - Leeds School of Businessleeds-faculty.colorado.edu/dahe7472/amabile creativity review.pdf · creativity. That publication was supplemented in 1988 by the Creativity Research

ANRV398-PS61-22 ARI 5 November 2009 14:18

develop and train creative behavior in their stu-dents. Similarly, Chan & Chan (1999) examinedthe implicit theories held by Hong Kong teach-ers about the characteristics of creative anduncreative students. Like the results reportedin similar U.S. studies, this investigation indi-cated that Chinese teachers regard some char-acteristics of creative students as socially unde-sirable. A number of other researchers in theChinese literature have examined preferredthinking styles in teaching and their links tocreativity in the schools (e.g., Zhang 2006).

With their focus on 27 primary classroomsand their teachers in Hong Kong, Forrester &Hui (2007) utilized a variety of creativity mea-sures developed in the West. These included aclassroom observation form, a measure of class-room climate, an index of behaviors used byteachers to foster creative behavior, and a cre-ative personality scale. Also employed was a cre-ativity test for students that had been developedin China. Findings lent support to existing sys-tem and componential theories involving bothflow and the impact of environmental factorson student motivation and creative behavior.Finally, Dineen & Niu (2008) explored theeffectiveness of Western creative teachingmethods in China. This quasi-field experimentdelivered the standard Chinese undergraduategraphic design curriculum to one class ofChinese students within the framework of acreative pedagogic model developed in theUnited Kingdom. Another class received thestandard Chinese graphic design education.Visual products produced by the students fromthe two classes both before and during the in-tervention were evaluated for overall creativity,originality, design quality, and experimentalrange. Levels of effort, enjoyment, motivation,and confidence in experimentation were alsoassessed. Both quantitative and qualitative datashowed that creative methods developed inthe United Kingdom were highly effective inencouraging creativity and related constructs,including intrinsic motivation, among Chineseuniversity students.

This proliferation of school-based researchin Asia and beyond raises a variety of significant

questions. In particular is the issue of why moreU.S. researchers and theorists do not appearto share their non-U.S. colleagues’ current in-terest in and concerns about the promotionof student creativity. One possibility is thatwith America’s newfound emphasis on “high-stakes testing” and other manifestations of theaccountability movement has come a generalde-emphasis on creative behavior in favor ofthe more easily quantified and assessed mas-tery of reading, writing, and arithmetic. With-out a doubt, this change in focus has made itfar more difficult for U.S. researchers to se-cure funding for the study of creativity in theschools. An investigation of creative behaviorin schools in China (Niu & Sternberg 2003)indicated that high-stakes educational testingcoupled with societal values and school peda-gogic approaches has for some time impairedthe creativity of students of that nation. Butnow, many Asian educators, policy-makers, andresearchers are calling for a shift of emphasisaway from testing and toward the promotion ofmore open-ended, creativity-boosting teachingtechniques.

One concern beginning to surface in theliterature involves the fact that many non-Western investigators employ Western-basedmeasures and paradigms when investigating thecreativity of persons living, working, and learn-ing in cultures fundamentally different fromthose of the West. As Kim (2005) cautioned,educational systems are formed based on cul-tural expectations and ideologies. Of course, thesame can be said of workplace environmentsand any other milieus where creative behav-ior might occur. It is questionable to expectthat research approaches and tools developed inone cultural context will serve investigators inanother culture.

Social Environment: Culture

Does it make sense to presume that the models,paradigms, theories, and measures constructedby scholars in the Western world can adequatelyexplain or tap the creativity of persons living incultures very different from those of the United

www.annualreviews.org • Creativity 587

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

010.

61:5

69-5

98. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Col

orad

o -

Bou

lder

on

10/0

8/12

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

Page 20: Creativity - Leeds School of Businessleeds-faculty.colorado.edu/dahe7472/amabile creativity review.pdf · creativity. That publication was supplemented in 1988 by the Creativity Research

ANRV398-PS61-22 ARI 5 November 2009 14:18

States, Canada, and Western Europe? For ex-ample, can the intrinsic motivation principle ofcreativity (Amabile 1996) be assumed to applyto persons in Asia? Can the Consensual As-sessment Technique (Amabile 1982, Hennessey& Amabile 1999) be expected to yield reli-able and valid assessments of product creativ-ity across cultures? Baer (2003) argued con-vincingly that cross-cultural creativity researchcan teach us a great deal both about creativityand about different cultures. Yet the potentialpitfalls and challenges are many. Concrete ex-amples of some of these difficulties come fromChiu (2007) and Leung (2007), who presentedthoughtful and complementary treatises on thechallenges faced by those attempting to con-struct and promote an “Asian social psychol-ogy.” And in an especially comprehensive re-view, Lehman et al. (2004) reminded us thatpsychological processes influence culture, cul-ture influences psychological processes, indi-viduals’ thoughts and actions have the potentialto influence cultural norms, and these culturalnorms and practices influence the thoughts andactions of individuals.

Another important demonstration of thecomplexity of cross-cultural considerationscame from Rudowicz (2003), who made thecase that creative expression is a universally hu-man phenomenon. Yet despite this universality,Rudowicz argued that methodological and con-ceptual problems loom large in cross-culturalinvestigations. The effects of culture on cre-ativity are complex and highly interactive, andinclude historical, societal, and individual cross-cultural factors. One obvious concern facedby investigators wishing to explore creativitycross-culturally is whether definitions and op-erationalizations of creativity coming from oneculture can be validly applied in another poten-tially very different culture. In studying implicittheories of creativity across cultures, Paletz& Peng (2008) found that although Japanese,Chinese, and American university students allconsidered novelty to be important in evaluat-ing creativity, appropriateness was more impor-tant for the Americans and Japanese than forthe Chinese. Runco and collaborators (2002)

also investigated implicit theories of creativityacross cultures, examining teachers’ and par-ents’ ideas about children’s creativity in theUnited States and India. Across cultures, sig-nificant differences emerged for intellectual andattitudinal clusters of trait adjectives. Such stud-ies support the contention that implicit the-ories are influenced by cultural traditions andexpectations.

Probably no cross-cultural contrast has re-ceived more research attention than the collec-tivist/individualistic distinction. In one inves-tigation involving this dichotomy, Ng (2003)tested a theoretical model positing culturalindividualism/collectivism as the antecedentvariable, independent and interdependent self-construals as the mediating variables, and cre-ative and conforming behaviors as the outcomevariables. Survey responses of white under-graduates from Australia (individualistic ori-entation) and Chinese undergraduates fromSingapore (collectivist orientation) were com-pared, and SEM results provided strong overallsupport for this theoretical model and the pro-posed relation between individualism and cre-ativity (as well as collectivism and more con-forming, less creative behavior). A subsequentpaper (Ng 2005) then expanded on these find-ings with the demonstration of especially highindices of “fit.” Zha and colleagues (2006) alsoexplored individualism/collectivism and the im-pact of culture on creative potential. In thisstudy comparing highly educated American andChinese adults, Americans displayed signifi-cantly higher scores on a measure of creativepotential. Chinese study participants showedsignificantly higher skill mastery in mathemat-ics; as expected, Americans showed greater in-dividualism, whereas the Chinese were morecollectivistic.

Finally, although much of the literature inthis area has been focused on cross-culturalcomparisons of creative behavior, some re-searchers have chosen to explore directly thepremise that multicultural experience fosterscreativity. Leung et al. (2008) empiricallydemonstrated that exposure to multiple cul-tures can, in and of itself, enhance creative

588 Hennessey · Amabile

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

010.

61:5

69-5

98. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Col

orad

o -

Bou

lder

on

10/0

8/12

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

Page 21: Creativity - Leeds School of Businessleeds-faculty.colorado.edu/dahe7472/amabile creativity review.pdf · creativity. That publication was supplemented in 1988 by the Creativity Research

ANRV398-PS61-22 ARI 5 November 2009 14:18

behavior. More specifically, this investigationshowed that extensiveness of multicultural ex-perience was positively related to both creativeperformance and thought processes consideredconducive to creative behavior.

CONCLUSION: TAKING ASYSTEMS PERSPECTIVE

Clearly, the great variety of research questionsand investigative approaches outlined in this re-view can significantly broaden our understand-ing of the phenomenon of creativity in manyimportant ways. Yet no single construct, noone investigative focus, can adequately accountfor the emergence of creative behavior. Likemany students of psychology before them, con-temporary creativity researchers and theoristsare faced with the daunting task of disentan-gling the interplay between nature and nurture.Neurological events in the brain, behavioralmanifestations of mental illness, or individ-ual differences in personality must be studiednot in isolation but in conjunction with theparticular environment in which an individ-ual’s physical, intellectual, and social develop-ment has taken place. More than two decadesago, Amabile (1983, 1996) offered a three-pronged Componential Model of Creativity in-corporating domain skills, creativity skills, andtask motivation influenced by the social envi-ronment; Sternberg’s (1988) Triarchic Modelof Intelligence also got us thinking in threes.The most recent decade brought few new at-tempts to conceptualize creativity on a broadscale.

An evolutionary approach based on thework of Charles Darwin, first conceptualizedby Campbell (1960) and later modified andelaborated by Simonton (1999, 2007), has con-tinued to garner a great deal of attention.Drawing on Campbell’s blind-variation-and-selective-retention theory of creativity, Simon-ton made the case that the Darwinian modelmight actually subsume all other theories ofcreativity as special cases of a larger evolu-tionary framework. Perhaps not surprisingly,comments on Simonton’s call for creativity

theorists to adopt a Darwinian perspective cameswiftly. Feist (1999) argued that the applica-tion of evolutionary theory to creativity mustbe taken as metaphorical rather than literal.Gardner (1999) countered with the caution thattrue blind variation would imply that the cre-ator, consciously or unconsciously, tries out ev-ery conceivable approach or idea in the processof finding an optimal solution or point of com-pletion for a piece of work. Gabora (2007) andDasgupta (2004) published particularly nega-tive reviews of Simonton’s approach and offereda number of counter examples demonstratingthe essential role played by expertise. Seekingto strike a balance between these two frame-works, Weisberg & Hass (2007) suggested that“blindness” in the context of the creative pro-cess could be defined as the individual’s inabilityto predict the outcome of his or her efforts andended with the conclusion that although blind-ness may be a component of creativity, we neednot assume that creative behavior must includefree-association processes.

Another recent attempt at constructing acomprehensive model of creativity was alsobased on the application of well-establishedtheory to the specific case of creative behav-ior. Over the past decade, a small group of re-searchers has repeatedly made the argumentthat the frameworks originated by Jean Piagetand Lev Vygotsky to explain cognitive devel-opment in children could also be fruitfully ap-plied to the creative process. Ayman-Nolley(1999) challenged the assumption that Piagetfailed to address the phenomenon of creativ-ity in his exploration of the development of themind and argued that the mechanisms of as-similation and accommodation can readily beapplied to creative behavior. Voneche (2003)applied Piaget’s notions of invariance and trans-formations to the creative process, and J. Kim(2006) reminded researchers and theorists thatPiaget had suggested reflective abstraction asthe mechanism for creativity. In this same pa-per, Kim also explored the work of Vygotsky onthe interrelation between imagination and cre-ativity; Lindqvist (2003) argued that Vygotsky’snotion of the “zone of proximal development”

www.annualreviews.org • Creativity 589

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

010.

61:5

69-5

98. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Col

orad

o -

Bou

lder

on

10/0

8/12

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

Page 22: Creativity - Leeds School of Businessleeds-faculty.colorado.edu/dahe7472/amabile creativity review.pdf · creativity. That publication was supplemented in 1988 by the Creativity Research

ANRV398-PS61-22 ARI 5 November 2009 14:18

might help explain how creative ideas or prob-lem solutions take shape.

J.P. Guilford’s research on creativity, par-ticularly his work on creative problem solv-ing, also resurfaced to garner some recent at-tention. Guilford is perhaps best rememberedfor his contention that divergent thinking playsa central role in creative thought. ReviewingGuilford’s (1967) structure of intellect model,Mumford (2001) argued for a return to effortsto take a broad, comprehensive approach to thestudy of creativity. Richards (2001) echoed thiscall and made a strong case for the infusion ofchaos theory into interpretations of Guilford’swork. More specifically, Richards argued thatchaos theory can provide models and metaphorsfor rapid, holistic nonlinear creative processes.

Interestingly, theories of organizational cre-ativity have tended to include more levels ofanalysis than creativity theories within psychol-ogy. This may be because organizational schol-ars converge from the disciplines of economics,sociology, organizational behavior, and others,as well as psychology. The two most frequentlycited organizational creativity theories includefactors in the individual and the organization(Amabile 1988, 1996) or the individual, group,and organization (Woodman et al. 1993), aswell as interactions between these levels. Other,

more recent theories are similarly multilevel(Drazin et al. 1999, Ford 1996, Mumford2000, Unsworth 2001). However, even in thisrealm, theories lack a truly systemic, dynamicquality.

Having seen the scholarly rigor underly-ing much of the contemporary literature onthe psychology of creativity, we are heartenedby the advances in knowledge made in re-cent years. However, although many theoristsand researchers have broadened our perspec-tive on creativity, their efforts do not extendfar enough. Our review moves us to sound acautionary note. The staggering array of disci-plinary approaches to understanding creativitycan prove to be an advantage, but only if re-searchers and theorists work together and un-derstand the discoveries that are being madeacross creative domains and analytical levels.Otherwise, the mysteries may deepen. Onlyby using multiple lenses simultaneously, look-ing across levels, and thinking about creativ-ity systematically, will we be able to unlockand use its secrets. What we need now are all-encompassing systems theories of creativity de-signed to tie together and make sense of the di-versity of perspectives found in the literature—from the innermost neurological level to theoutermost cultural level.

SUMMARY POINTS

1. The creativity literature has seen substantial growth in volume and scope as well asmethodological and theoretical sophistication.

2. With the growth in outlets for publication has come increasing fragmentation in creativityresearch.

3. Researchers and theorists in one subfield often seem unaware of work being done inanother.

4. The advancement of technology, especially fMRI, coupled with increases in access toequipment for researchers have contributed to a virtual explosion of information on the“creative brain.”

5. Although creativity in persons has some trait-like (stable) aspects, it is also a state subjectto influence by the social environment.

6. People are most creative when they are motivated primarily by the interest, enjoyment,satisfaction, and challenge of the work itself—i.e., by intrinsic motivation.

590 Hennessey · Amabile

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

010.

61:5

69-5

98. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Col

orad

o -

Bou

lder

on

10/0

8/12

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

Page 23: Creativity - Leeds School of Businessleeds-faculty.colorado.edu/dahe7472/amabile creativity review.pdf · creativity. That publication was supplemented in 1988 by the Creativity Research

ANRV398-PS61-22 ARI 5 November 2009 14:18

7. Scholars of organizations, many of whom are trained research psychologists, have in-creasingly turned their attention to creativity in the workplace.

8. We cannot presume that the models, paradigms, theories, and measures constructed byscholars in the Western world can adequately explain or tap the creativity of personsliving in cultures very different from those of the United States, Canada, and WesternEurope.

9. Deeper understanding of creative behavior will require more interdisciplinary researchbased on a systems view of creativity that recognizes a variety of interrelated forcesoperating at multiple levels.

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

The authors are not aware of any biases that might be perceived as affecting the objectivity of thisreview.

LITERATURE CITED

Abraham A. 2007. Can a neural system geared to bring about rapid, predictive, and efficient function explaincreativity? Creat. Res. J. 19:19–24

Abraham A, Windmann S. 2008. Selective information processing advantages in creative cognition as a functionof schizotypy. Creat. Res. J. 20:1–6

Ai X. 1999. Creativity and academic achievement: an investigation of gender differences. Creat. Res. J. 12:329–37

Alge BJ, Ballinger GA, Tangirala S, Oakley JL. 2006. Information privacy in organizations: empoweringcreative and extrarole performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 91:221–32

Amabile TM. 1982. Social psychology of creativity: a consensual assessment technique. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol.43:997–1013

Amabile TM. 1983. The social psychology of creativity: a componential conceptualization. J. Personal. Soc.Psychol. 45:357–76

Amabile TM. 1988. A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In Research in OrganizationalBehavior, ed. BM Staw, LL Cummings, Vol. 10, pp. 123–67. Greenwich, CT: JAI

Amabile TM. 1993. Motivational synergy: toward new conceptualizations of intrinsic and extrinsic motivationin the workplace. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 3:185–201

Presents one of themajor theories ofcreativity and reviewssocial-psychologicalresearch.

Amabile TM. 1996. Creativity in Context. Boulder, CO: WestviewAmabile TM, Barsade SG, Mueller JS, Staw BM. 2005. Affect and creativity at work. Admin. Sci. Q. 50:367–403Amabile TM, Conti R, Coon H, Lazenby J, Herron M. 1996. Assessing the work environment for creativity.

Acad. Manage. J. 39:1154–84Amabile TM, Hadley CN, Kramer SJ. 2002. Creativity under the gun. Harvard Bus. Rev. 80:52–61Amabile TM, Hill KG, Hennessey BA, Tighe EM. 1994. The Work Preference Inventory: assessing intrinsic

and extrinsic motivational orientations. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 66:950–67Amabile TM, Mueller JS. 2008. Studying creativity, its processes, and its antecedents: an exploration of the

componential theory of creativity. In Zhou & Shalley 2008, pp. 33–64Amabile TM, Schatzel E, Moneta GB, Kramer SJ. 2004. Leader behaviors and the work environment for

creativity: perceived leader support. Leadersh. Q. 15:5–32Aspinwall LG. 1998. Rethinking the role of positive affect in self-regulation. Motiv. Emot. 22:1–32Ayman-Nolley S. 1999. A Piagetian perspective on the dialectic process of creativity. Creat. Res. J. 12:267–75Baer J. 2003. Double dividends: cross-cultural creativity studies teach us about both creativity and cultures.

Inquiry: Crit. Thinking Across Discip. 22:37–39

www.annualreviews.org • Creativity 591

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

010.

61:5

69-5

98. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Col

orad

o -

Bou

lder

on

10/0

8/12

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

Page 24: Creativity - Leeds School of Businessleeds-faculty.colorado.edu/dahe7472/amabile creativity review.pdf · creativity. That publication was supplemented in 1988 by the Creativity Research

ANRV398-PS61-22 ARI 5 November 2009 14:18

Baer J. 2008. Commentary: divergent thinking tests have problems, but this is not the solution. Psychol. Aesthet.Creat. Arts 2:89–92

Baer J, Kaufman JC, Gentile CA. 2004. Extension of the Consensual Assessment Technique to nonparallelcreative products. Creat. Res. J. 16:113–17

Baer M, Oldham GR. 2006. The curvilinear relation between experienced creative time pressure and creativity:moderating effects of openness to experience and support for creativity. J. Appl. Psychol. 91:963–70

Basadur M, Pringle P, Kirkland D. 2002. Crossing cultures: training effects on the divergent thinking attitudesof Spanish-speaking South American managers. Creat. Res. J. 14:395–408

Becker G. 2001. The association of creativity and psychopathology: its cultural-historical origins. Creat. Res.J. 13:45–53

Beghetto RA. 2007. Does creativity have a place in classroom discussions? Prospective teachers’ responsepreferences. Thinking Skills Creat. 2:1–9

Beghetto RA, Kaufman JC. 2007. Toward a broader conception of creativity: a case for “mini-c” creativity.Psychol. Aesthet. Creat. Arts 1:73–79

Benedek M, Fink A, Neubauer AC. 2006. Enhancement of ideational fluency by means of computer-basedtraining. Creat. Res. J. 18:317–28

Bowden EM, Jung-Beeman M. 1998. Getting the right idea: semantic activation in the right hemisphere mayhelp solve insight problems. Psychol. Sci. 9:435–40

Bowden EM, Jung-Beeman M. 2003. Aha! Insight experience correlates with solution activation in the righthemisphere. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 10:730–37

Brophy DR. 1998a. Understanding, measuring, and enhancing collective creative problem-solving efforts.Creat. Res. J. 11:199–229

Brophy DR. 1998b. Understanding, measuring, and enhancing individual creative problem-solving efforts.Creat. Res. J. 11:123–50

Brophy DR. 2006. A comparison of individual and group efforts to creatively solve contrasting types ofproblems. Creat. Res. J. 18:293–315

Brown J. 2007. On Vandervert et al. “Working memory cerebellum, and creativity.” Creat. Res. J. 19:25–29Brown VR, Paulus PB. 2002. Making group brainstorming more effective: recommendations from an asso-

ciative memory perspective. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 11:208–12Cameron J, Pierce WD. 1994. Reinforcement, reward, and intrinsic motivation: a meta-analysis. Rev. Educ.

Res. 64:363–423Campbell DT. 1960. Blind variation and selective retentions in creative thought as in other knowledge pro-

cesses. Psychol. Rev. 67:380–400Carson SH, Peterson JB, Higgins DM. 2003. Decreased latent inhibition is associated with increased creative

achievement in high-functioning individuals. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 85:499–506Chan DW, Chan L-K. 1999. Implicit theories of creativity: teachers’ perception of student characteristics in

Hong Kong. Creat. Res. J. 12:185–95Chavez-Eakle RA, del Carmen LM, Cruz-Fuentes C. 2006. Personality: a possible bridge between creativity

and psychopathology? Creat. Res. J. 18:27–38Cheung PC, Lau S, Chan DW, Wu WYH. 2004. Creative potential of school children in Hong Kong: norms

of the Wallach-Kogan Creativity Tests and their implications. Creat. Res. J. 16:69–78Chiu C. 2007. How can Asian social psychology succeed globally? Asian J. Soc. Psychol. 10:41–44Clapham MM. 2001. The effects of affect manipulation and information exposure on divergent thinking.

Creat. Res. J. 13:335–50Claxton AF, Pannells TC, Rhoads PA. 2005. Developmental trends in the creativity of school-age children.

Creat. Res. J. 17:327–35Claxton G, Edwards L, Scale-Constantinou V. 2006. Cultivating creative mentalities: a framework for edu-

cation. Thinking Skills Creat. 1:57–61Conti R, Collins MA, Picariello ML. 2001. The impact of competition on intrinsic motivation and creativity:

considering gender, gender segregation and gender role orientation. Personal. Individ. Differ. 31:1273–89Cox AJ, Leon JL. 1999. Negative schizotypal traits in the relation of creativity to psychopathology. Creat. Res.

J. 12:25–36

592 Hennessey · Amabile

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

010.

61:5

69-5

98. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Col

orad

o -

Bou

lder

on

10/0

8/12

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

Page 25: Creativity - Leeds School of Businessleeds-faculty.colorado.edu/dahe7472/amabile creativity review.pdf · creativity. That publication was supplemented in 1988 by the Creativity Research

ANRV398-PS61-22 ARI 5 November 2009 14:18

Cramond B, Matthews-Morgan J, Torrance EP, Zuo L. 1999. Why should the Torrance Tests of CreativeThinking be used to access creativity? Korean J. Probl. Solv. 9:77–101

Cremin T, Burnard P, Craft A. 2006. Pedagogy and possibility thinking in the early years. Thinking SkillsCreat. 1:108–19

Dasgupta S. 2004. Is creativity a Darwinian process? Creat. Res. J. 16:403–13De Dreu CKW, Baas M, Nijstad BA. 2008. Hedonic tone and activation level in the mood-creativity link:

toward a dual pathway to creativity model. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 94:739–56Deci EL, Ryan RM, eds. 2002. Handbook of Self-Determination Research. Rochester, NY: Univ. Rochester PressDeCoker G. 2000. Looking at U.S. education through the eyes of Japanese teachers. Phi Delta Kappan 81:780–

81Dewett T. 2007. Linking intrinsic motivation, risk taking, and employee creativity in an R&D environment.

R&D Manag. 37:197–208Dineen R, Niu W. 2008. The effectiveness of western creative teaching methods in China: an action research

project. Psychol. Aesthet. Creat. Arts 2:42–52Dow GT, Mayer RE. 2004. Teaching students to solve insight problems: evidence for domain specificity in

creativity training. Creat. Res. J. 16:389–402Drazin R, Glynn MA, Kazanjian RK. 1999. Multilevel theorizing about creativity in organizations: a sense-

making perspective. Acad. Manage. Rev. 24:286–307Eberle B. 1997. Scamper: Creative Games and Activities for Imagination Development. Austin, TX: PrufrockEdmondson AC, Mogelof JP. 2006. Explaining psychological safety in innovation teams: organizational cul-

ture, team dynamics, or personality? In Creativity and Innovation in Organizational Teams, ed. LL Thomp-son, H-S Choi, pp. 109–36. New York: Erlbaum

Presents thecontroversial view thatrewards undermineintrinsic motivation andcreativity only undervery limited conditions.

Eisenberger R, Cameron J. 1996. Detrimental effects of reward: reality or myth? Am. Psychol. 51:1153–66

Eisenberger R, Cameron J. 1998. Reward, intrinsic interest, and creativity: new findings. Am. Psychol. 53:676–79

Eisenberger R, Selbst M. 1994. Does reward increase or decrease creativity? J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 66:1116–27Eisenberger R, Shanock L. 2003. Rewards, intrinsic motivation, and creativity: a case study of conceptual and

methodological isolation. Creat. Res. J. 15:121–30Epstein R, Schmidt SM, Warfel R. 2008. Measuring and training creativity competencies: validation of a new

test. Creat. Res. J. 20:7–12Farmer SM, Tierney P, Kung-McIntyre K. 2003. Employee creativity in Taiwan: an application of role identity

theory. Acad. Manage. J. 46:618–30Feist GJ. 1998. A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev.

2:290–309Feist GJ. 1999. Is the theory of evolution winning the battle of the survival of the fittest in the social sciences?

Psychol. Inq. 10:334–38Feist GJ, Barron FX. 2003. Predicting creativity from early to late adulthood: intellect, potential, and person-

ality. J. Res. Personal. 37:62–88Ford CM. 1996. A theory of individual creativity in multiple social domains. Acad. Manage. Rev. 21:1112–34Forrester V, Hui A. 2007. Creativity in the Hong Kong classroom: what is the contextual practice? Thinking

Skills Creat. 2:30–38Friedman RS, Førster J, Denzler M. 2007. Interactive effects of mood and task framing on creative generation.

Creat. Res. J. 19:141–62Fryer M. 2006. Making a difference: a tribute to E. Paul Torrance from the United Kingdom. Creat. Res. J.

18:121–28Gabora L. 2007. Why the creative process is not Darwinian: comment on “The creative process in Picasso’s

Guernica sketches: monotonic improvements versus nonmonotonic variants.” Creat. Res. J. 19:361–65Garaigordobil M. 2006. Intervention in creativity with children aged 10 and 11 years: impact of a play program

on verbal and graphic-figural creativity. Creat. Res. J. 18:329–45Gardner H. 1999. Was Darwin’s creativity Darwinian? Psychol. Inq. 10:338–40

Reviews theory andresearch onorganizationalcreativity, focusing onpsychological aspects.

George JM. 2007. Chapter 9: creativity in organizations. Acad. Manage. Ann. 1:439–77

www.annualreviews.org • Creativity 593

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

010.

61:5

69-5

98. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Col

orad

o -

Bou

lder

on

10/0

8/12

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

Page 26: Creativity - Leeds School of Businessleeds-faculty.colorado.edu/dahe7472/amabile creativity review.pdf · creativity. That publication was supplemented in 1988 by the Creativity Research

ANRV398-PS61-22 ARI 5 November 2009 14:18

George JM, Zhou J. 2002. Understanding when bad moods foster creativity and good ones don’t: the role ofcontext and clarity of feelings. J. Appl. Psychol. 87:687–97

George JM, Zhou J. 2007. Dual tuning in a supportive context: joint contributions of positive mood, negativemood, and supervisory behaviors to employee creativity. Acad. Manage. J. 50:605–22

Ghadirian AM, Gregoire P, Kosmidis H. 2001. Creativity and the evolution of psychopathologies. Creat. Res.J. 13:145–48

Gibson CB, Gibbs JL. 2006. Unpacking the concept of virtuality: the effects of geographic dispersion, elec-tronic dependence, dynamic structure, and national diversity on team innovation. Admin. Sci. Q. 51:451–95

Gluck J, Ernst R, Unger F. 2002. How creatives define creativity: Definitions reflect different types of creativity.Creat. Res. J. 14:55–67

Groborz M, Necka E. 2003. Creativity and cognitive control: explorations of generation and evaluation skills.Creat. Res. J. 15:183–97

Guilford JP. 1967. The Nature of Human Intelligence. New York: McGraw-HillHargadon AB, Bechky BA. 2006. When collections of creatives become creative collectives: a field study of

problem solving at work. Organ. Sci. 17:484–500Helson R, Pals JL. 2000. Creative potential, creative achievement, and personal growth. J. Personal. 68:1–27Helson R, Srivastava S. 2002. Creative and wise people: similarities, differences and how they develop. Personal.

Soc. Psychol. Bull. 28:1430–40Hennessey BA. 2003. The social psychology of creativity. Scand. J. Educ. Res. 47:253–71Hennessey BA. 2004. Developing Creativity in Gifted Children: The Central Importance of Motivation and Classroom

Climate. Storrs, CT: Natl. Res. Cent. Gifted TalentedRefutes claims ofEisenberger andcolleagues and assertsthat expected rewardsare typically detrimentalto creativity.

Hennessey BA, Amabile TM. 1998. Reality, intrinsic motivation, and creativity. Am. Psychol. 53:674–75Hennessey BA, Amabile TM. 1999. Consensual assessment. In Encyclopedia of Creativity, ed. M Runco, S

Pritzker, pp. 34–36. New York: AcademicHongli W. 2004. On developing creativity in primary and middle school students. Psychol. Sci. (China) 27:383–

85Huang S, Lin C, Wang Y. 2005. A review on implicit theories of teachers’ creativity. Psychol. Sci. (China)

28:1243–45Isen AM. 2000. Positive affect and decision making. In Handbook of Emotions, ed. M Lewis, J Haviland-Jones,

pp. 417–35. New York: GuildfordIsen AM, Reeve J. 2005. The influence of positive affect on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: facilitating

enjoyment of play, responsible work behavior, and self-control. Motiv. Emot. 29:297–325James K, Asmus C. 2001. Personality, cognitive skills, and creativity in different life domains. Creat. Res. J.

13:149–59Jiliang S, Baoguo S. 2007. Effects of gender and types of materials on creativity. Psychol. Sci. (China) 30:285–88Joussemet M, Koestner R. 1999. Effect of expected rewards on children’s creativity. Creat. Res. J. 12:231–39Jung-Beeman MJ, Bowden EM. 2000. The right hemisphere maintains solution-related activation for yet-to-

be-solved problems. Mem. Cogn. 28:1231–41Kashdan TB, Fincham FD. 2002. Facilitating creativity by regulating curiosity. Comment. Am. Psychol. 57:373–

74Kaufman JC. 2002. Creativity and confidence: price of achievement? Comment. Am. Psychol. 57:375–76Kaufman JC, Baer J. 2002. Could Steven Spielberg manage the Yankees? Creative thinking in different do-

mains. Korean J. Probl. Solv. 12:5–14Kaufman JC, Baer J. 2006. An introduction to the special issue: a tribute to E. Paul Torrance. Creat. Res. J.

18:1–2Kaufman JC, Lee J, Baer J, Lee S. 2007. Captions, consistency, creativity, and the consensual assessment

technique: new evidence of reliability. Thinking Skills Creat. 2:96–106Kaufmann G. 2003a. Expanding the mood-creativity equation. Creat. Res. J. 15:131–35Kaufmann G. 2003b. What to measure? A new look at the concept of creativity. Scand. J. Educ. Res. 47:235–51Kim J. 2006. Piagetian and Vygotskian perspectives on creativity. Korean J. Probl. Solv. 16:25–38Kim KH. 2005. Learning from each other: creativity in East Asian and American education. Creat. Res. J.

17:337–47

594 Hennessey · Amabile

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

010.

61:5

69-5

98. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Col

orad

o -

Bou

lder

on

10/0

8/12

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

Page 27: Creativity - Leeds School of Businessleeds-faculty.colorado.edu/dahe7472/amabile creativity review.pdf · creativity. That publication was supplemented in 1988 by the Creativity Research

ANRV398-PS61-22 ARI 5 November 2009 14:18

Kim KH. 2006. Is creativity unidimensional or multidimensional? Analyses of the Torrance Tests of CreativeThinking. Creat. Res. J. 18:251–59

Provides an excellentexample of the “newwave” ofneuro-psychologicalresearch on creativity.

Kounios J, Frymiare JL, Bowden EM, Fleck JI, Subramaniam K, et al. 2006. The prepared mind: neuralactivity prior to problem presentation predicts subsequent solution by sudden insight. Psychol.

Sci. 17:882–90Kray LJ, Galinsky AD, Wong EM. 2006. Thinking within the box: the relational processing style elicited by

counterfactual mind-sets. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 91:33–48Kurtzberg TR. 2005. Feeling creative, being creative: an empirical study of diversity and creativity in teams.

Creat. Res. J. 17:51–65Kurtzberg TR, Amabile TM. 2001. From Guilford to creative synergy: opening the black box of team-level

creativity. Creat. Res. J. 13:285–94Larey TS, Paulus PB. 1999. Group preference and convergent tendencies in small groups: a content analysis

of group brainstorming performance. Creat. Res. J. 12:175–84Lee K-H. 2002. Creative thinking in real world situations in relation to gender and education of late adoles-

cents. Korean J. Probl. Solv. 12:59–70Lee S. 2008. Commentary: reliability and validity of uniqueness scoring in creativity assessment. Psychol.

Aesthet. Creat. Arts 2:103–8Lee S, Lee J, Youn C-Y. 2005. A variation of CAT for measuring creativity in business products. Korean J.

Probl. Solv. 15:143–53Lehman DR, Chiu C-Y, Schaller M. 2004. Psychology and culture. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 55:689–714Lepper MR. 1998. A whole much less than the sum of its parts. Am. Psychol. 53:675–76Leung AK-Y, Maddux WW, Galinsky AD, Chiu C-Y. 2008. Multicultural experience enhances creativity: the

when and how. Am. Psychol. 63:169–81Leung K. 2007. Asian social psychology: achievements, threats, and opportunities. Asian J. Soc. Psychol. 10:8–15Lindqvist G. 2003. Vygotsky’s theory of creativity. Creat. Res. J. 15:245–51Lovelace K, Shapiro DL, Weingart LR. 2001. Maximizing crossfunctional new product teams’ innovativeness

and constraint adherence: a conflict communications perspective. Acad. Manage. J. 44:479–93Madjar N, Oldham GR. 2006. Task rotation and polychronicity: effects on individuals’ creativity. Hum. Perform.

19:117–31Presents empiricalevidence that creativitycan be enhanced bysocial support fromvarious sources.

Madjar N, Oldham GR, Pratt MG. 2002. There’s no place like home? The contributions of work andnonwork creativity support to employees’ creative performance. Acad. Manage. J. 45:757–67

Majid DA, Tan A-G, Soh K-C. 2003. Enhancing children’s creativity: an exploratory study on using theInternet and SCAMPER as creative writing tools. Korean J. Probl. Solv. 13:67–81

Mannix E, Neale M. 2005. What differences make a difference? The promise and reality of diverse teams inorganizations. Psychol. Public Int. 6:31–55

Martin LL, Ward DW, Achee JW, Wyer RS. 1993. Mood as input: people have to interpret the motivationalimplications of their moods. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 64:317–26

McCrae RR. 1987. Creativity, divergent thinking, and openness to experience. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 52:1258–65

Mell JC, Howard SM, Miller BL. 2003. Art and the brain: the influence of frontotemporal dementia on anaccomplished artist. Neurology 60:1707–10

Miller AL. 2007. Creativity and cognitive style: the relationship between field-dependence-independence,expected evaluation, and creative performance. Psychol. Aesthet. Creat. Arts 1:243–46

Miller BL, Boone K, Cummings JL, Read SL, Mishkin F. 2000. Functional correlates of musical and visualability in frontotemporal dementia. Br. J. Psychiatry 176:458–63

Miller BL, Hou CE. 2004. Portraits of artists: emergence of visual creativity in dementia. Arch. Neurol. 61:842–44

Mouchiroud C, Lubart T. 2002. Social creativity: a cross-sectional study of 6- to 11-year-old children. Int. J.Behav. Dev. 26:60–69

Mumford MD. 2000. Managing creative people: strategies and tactics for innovation. Hum. Resour. Manag.Rev. 10:313–51

Mumford MD. 2001. Something old, something new: revisiting Guilford’s conception of creative problemsolving. Creat. Res. J. 13:267–76

www.annualreviews.org • Creativity 595

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

010.

61:5

69-5

98. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Col

orad

o -

Bou

lder

on

10/0

8/12

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

Page 28: Creativity - Leeds School of Businessleeds-faculty.colorado.edu/dahe7472/amabile creativity review.pdf · creativity. That publication was supplemented in 1988 by the Creativity Research

ANRV398-PS61-22 ARI 5 November 2009 14:18

Mumford MD, Antes AL. 2007. Debates about the “general” picture: cognition and creative achievement.Creat. Res. J. 19:367–74

Mumford MD, Marks MA, Connelly MS, Zaccaro SJ, Johnson JF. 1998. Domain-based scoring of divergent-thinking tests: validation evidence in an occupational sample. Creat. Res. J. 11:151–63

Mumford MD, Vessey WB, Barrett JD. 2008. Commentary. Measuring divergent thinking: Is there really onesolution to the problem? Psychol. Aesthet. Creat. Arts 2:86–88

Nassif C, Quevillon R. 2008. The development of a preliminary creativity scale for the MMPI-2: the C scale.Creat. Res. J. 20:13–20

Necka E. 1999. Creativity and attention. Polish Psychol. Bull. 30:85–97Nettle D. 2006. Reconciling the mutation-selection balance model with the schizotypy-creativity connection.

Behav. Brain Sci. 29:418Ng AK. 2003. A cultural model of creative and conforming behavior. Creat. Res. J. 15:223–33Ng AK. 2005. Creativity, learning goal and self-construal: a cross-cultural investigation. Korean J. Probl. Solv.

15:65–80Nijstad BA, Stroebe W. 2006. How the group affects the mind: a cognitive model of idea generation in groups.

Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 10:186–213Niu W, Sternberg RJ. 2003. Societal and school influences on student creativity: the case of China. Psychol.

Sch. 40:103–14O’Hara LA, Sternberg RJ. 2001. It doesn’t hurt to ask: effects of instructions to be creative, practical, or

analytical on essay-writing performance and their interaction with students’ thinking styles. Creat. Res. J.13:197–210

Ohly S, Sonnentag S, Pluntke F. 2006. Routinization, work characteristics and their relationships with creativeand proactive behaviors. J. Organ. Behav. 27:257–79

Osborn AF. 1953/1957/1963/1967. Applied Imagination: Principles and Procedures of Creative Problem Solving.New York: Scribner’s

Parnes SJ. 1966. Manual for Institutes and Programs. Buffalo, NY: Creative Educ. Found.Paletz SBF, Peng K. 2008. Implicit theories of creativity across cultures: novelty and appropriateness in two

product domains. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 39:286–302Paulus PB, Yang H-C. 2000. Idea generation in groups: a basis for creativity in organizations. Organ. Behav.

Hum. Decis. Process. 82:76–87Perrine NE, Brodersen RM. 2005. Artistic and scientific creative behavior: openness and the mediating role

of interests. Creat. Res. J. 39:217–36Perry-Smith JE. 2006. Social yet creative: the role of social relationships in facilitating individual creativity.

Acad. Manage. J. 49:85–101Peterson JB, Carson S. 2000. Latent inhibition and openness to experience in a high-achieving student pop-

ulation. Personal. Individ. Differ. 28:323–32Peterson JB, Smith KW, Carson S. 2002. Openness and extraversion are associated with reduced latent

inhibition: replication and commentary. Personal. Individ. Differ. 33:1137–47Plucker JA. 1999. Is the proof in the pudding? Reanalyses of Torrance’s (1958 to present) longitudinal data.

Creat. Res. J. 12:103–14Plucker JA, Beghetto RA, Dow GT. 2004. Why isn’t creativity more important to educational psychologists?

Potentials, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research. Educ. Psychol. 39:83–96Plucker JA, Runco MA. 1998. The death of creativity measurement has been greatly exaggerated: current

issues, recent advances, and future directions in creativity assessment. Roeper Rev. 21:36–39Demonstratesconditions for positiveor negative effects ofdiversity on groupcreative outcomes.

Polzer J, Milton LP, Swann B. 2002. Capitalizing on diversity: interpersonal congruence in small workgroups. Adm. Sci. Q. 47:296–324

Prabhu V, Sutton C, Sauser W. 2008. Creativity and certain personality traits: understanding the mediatingeffect of intrinsic motivation. Creat. Res. J. 20:53–66

Prentky RA. 2001. Mental illness and roots of genius. Creat. Res. J. 13:95–104Richards R. 2001. Millennium as opportunity: chaos, creativity, and Guilford’s structure of intellect model.

Creat. Res. J. 13:249–65Rothenberg A. 2006. Essay: Creativity—the healthy muse. Lancet 368:S8–9

596 Hennessey · Amabile

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

010.

61:5

69-5

98. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Col

orad

o -

Bou

lder

on

10/0

8/12

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

Page 29: Creativity - Leeds School of Businessleeds-faculty.colorado.edu/dahe7472/amabile creativity review.pdf · creativity. That publication was supplemented in 1988 by the Creativity Research

ANRV398-PS61-22 ARI 5 November 2009 14:18

Rudowicz E. 2003. Creativity and culture: a two-way interaction. Scand. J. Educ. Res. 47:273–90Runco MA. 1999. A longitudinal study of exceptional giftedness and creativity. Creat. Res. J. 12:161–64Runco MA. 2004. Creativity. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 55:657–87Runco MA, Johnson DJ, Raina MK. 2002. Parents’ and teachers’ implicit theories of children’s creativity: a

cross-cultural perspective. Creat. Res. J. 15:427–38Ruscio AM, Amabile TM. 1999. Effects of instructional style on problem-solving creativity. Creat. Res. J.

12:251–66Ryan RM, Deci EL. 2000. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social devel-

opment, and well-being. Am. Psychol. 55:68–78Sansone C, Harackiewicz JM. 1998. “Reality” is complicated. Am. Psychol. 53:673–74Sass LA. 2001. Schizophrenia, modernism, and the “creative imagination”: on creativity and psychopathology.

Creat. Res. J. 13:55–74Sawyer RK. 2006. Education for innovation. Thinking Skills Creat. 1:41–48Scott CL. 1999. Teachers’ biases toward creative children. Creat. Res. J. 12:321–37Scott GM, Leritz LE, Mumford MD. 2004. The effectiveness of creativity training: a quantitative review.

Creat. Res. J. 16:361–88Scott GM, Lonergan DC, Mumford MD. 2005. Conceptual combination: alternative knowledge structures,

alternative heuristics. Creat. Res. J. 17:79–98Shalley CE. 2008. Creating roles: what managers can do to establish expectations for creative performance.

In Zhou & Shalley, pp. 147–64Shalley CE, Zhou J. 2008. Organizational creativity research: a historical overview. In Zhou & Shalley 2008,

pp. 3–31Shalley CE, Zhou J, Oldham GR. 2004. Effects of personal and contextual characteristics on creativity: Where

should we go from here? J. Manag. 30:933–58Shin SJ, Zhou J. 2003. Transformational leadership, conservation, and creativity: evidence from Korea. Acad.

Manage. J. 46:703–14Silvia PJ. 2008. Creativity and intelligence revisited: a latent variable analysis of Wallach and Kogan (1965).

Creat. Res. J. 20:34–39Silvia PJ, Winterstein BP, Willse JT, Barona CM, Cram JT, et al. 2008. Assessing creativity with divergent

thinking tasks: exploring the reliability and validity of new subjective scoring methods. Psychol. Aesthet.Creat. Arts 2:68–85

One of very few recentattempts to construct asystems theory ofcreativity.

Simonton DK. 1999. Origins of Genius: Darwinian Perspectives on Creativity. New York: Oxford Univ.Press

Simonton DK. 2007. Picasso’s Guernica creativity as a Darwinian process: definitions, clarifications, miscon-ceptions, and applications. Creat. Res. J. 19:381–94

Sternberg RJ. 1988. The Triarchic Mind: A New Theory of Human Intelligence. New York: VikingSternberg RJ. 2001. What is the common thread of creativity? Its dialectical relation to intelligence and

wisdom. Am. Psychol. 56:360–62Synthesizes implicationsof creativity theories(among others) for acrucial arena: education.

Sternberg RJ. 2008. Applying psychological theories to educational practice. Am. Educ. Res. J. 45:150–65

Sullivan DM, Ford CM. 2005. The relationship between novelty and value in the assessment of organizationalcreativity. Korean J. Probl. Solv. 15:117–31

Svensson N, Norlander T, Archer T. 2002. Effects of individual performance versus group performance withand without de Bono techniques for enhancing creativity. Korean J. Probl. Solv. 12:15–34

Taggar S. 2002. A multi-level model of creativity in intact workgroups. Acad. Manage. J. 45:315–31Tan A-G. 2000. Students’ versus teachers’ perceptions of activities useful for fostering creativity. Korean J.

Probl. Solv. 10:49–59Tan A-G, Law L-C. 2000. Teaching creativity: Singapore’s experiences. Korean J. Probl. Solv. 10:79–96Tan A-G, Law L-C. 2002. Activities useful for fostering creativity: Singaporean children’s views. Korean J.

Probl. Solv. 12:59–74Tan A-G, Rasidir R. 2006. An exploratory study on children’s views of a creative teacher. Korean J. Probl. Solv.

16:17–28

www.annualreviews.org • Creativity 597

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

010.

61:5

69-5

98. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Col

orad

o -

Bou

lder

on

10/0

8/12

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

Page 30: Creativity - Leeds School of Businessleeds-faculty.colorado.edu/dahe7472/amabile creativity review.pdf · creativity. That publication was supplemented in 1988 by the Creativity Research

ANRV398-PS61-22 ARI 5 November 2009 14:18

Taylor A, Greve HR. 2006. Superman or the fantastic four? Knowledge combination and experience ininnovative teams. Acad. Manage. J. 49:723–40

Thompson L, Choi HS, eds. 2006. Creativity and Innovation in Organizational Teams. Mahwah, NJ: ErlbaumTorrance EP. 1966/1974. Torrance. Tests of Creative Thinking: Norms—Technical Manual. Lexington, MA: GinnTreffinger DJ, Isaksen SG. 1992. Creative Problem Solving: An Introduction. Sarasota, FL: Cent. Creative Learn.Treffinger DJ, Isaksen SG, Dorval KB. 2006. Creative Problem Solving: An Introduction. Waco, TX: Prufrock.

4th ed.Treffinger DJ, Selby EC. 2004. Problem solving style: a new approach to understanding and using individual

differences. Korean J. Probl. Solv. 14:5–10Unsworth K. 2001. Unpacking creativity. Acad. Manage. Rev. 26:289–97Vandervert LR, Schimpf PH, Liu H. 2007. How working memory and the cerebellum collaborate to produce

creativity and innovation. Creat. Res. J. 19:1–18Voneche J. 2003. The changing structure of Piaget’s thinking: invariance and transformations. Creat. Res. J.

15:3–9Vosburg SK. 1998. Mood and the quantity and quality of ideas. Creat. Res. J. 11:315–31Ward TB. 2001. Creative cognition, conceptual combination, and the creative writing of Stephen R. Donald-

son. Am. Psychol. 56:350–54Wechsler S. 2006. Validity of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking to the Brazilian culture. Creat. Res. J.

18:15–25Weisberg RW, Hass R. 2007. We are all partly right: comment on Simonton. Creat. Res. J. 19:345–60West MA, Sacramento CA, Fay D. 2005. Creativity and innovation in work groups: the paradoxical role of

demands. In Creativity and Innovation in Organizational Teams, ed. L Thompson, HS Choi, pp. 137–59.Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum

Winner E. 2000. The origins and ends of giftedness. Am. Psychol. 55:159–69Woodman RW, Sawyer JE, Griffin RW. 1993. Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Acad. Manage.

Rev. 18:293–321Zha P, Walczyk JJ, Griffith-Ross DA, Tobacyk JJ, Walczyk DF. 2006. The impact of culture and individualism-

collectivism on the creative potential and achievement of American and Chinese adults. Creat. Res. J.18:355–66

Zhang L-F. 2006. Preferred teaching styles and modes of thinking among university students in mainlandChina. Thinking Skills Creat. 1:95–107

Zhengkui L, Li C, Jiannong S. 2007. A review of researches on creativity and attention. Psychol. Sci. (China)30:387–90

Zhou J. 2008. Promoting creativity through feedback. In Zhou & Shalley 2008, pp. 125–45Zhou J, Shalley CE, eds. 2008. Handbook of Organizational Creativity. New York: Erlbaum

598 Hennessey · Amabile

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

010.

61:5

69-5

98. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Col

orad

o -

Bou

lder

on

10/0

8/12

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

Page 31: Creativity - Leeds School of Businessleeds-faculty.colorado.edu/dahe7472/amabile creativity review.pdf · creativity. That publication was supplemented in 1988 by the Creativity Research

AR398-FM ARI 7 November 2009 7:47

Annual Review ofPsychology

Volume 61, 2010 Contents

Prefatory

Love in the Fourth DimensionEllen Berscheid � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 1

Brain Mechanisms and Behavior

The Role of the Hippocampus in Prediction and ImaginationRandy L. Buckner � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �27

Learning and Memory Plasticity; Neuroscience of Learning

Hippocampal-Neocortical Interactions in Memory Formation,Consolidation, and ReconsolidationSzu-Han Wang and Richard G.M. Morris � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �49

Stress and Neuroendocrinology

Stress Hormone Regulation: Biological Roleand Translation Into TherapyFlorian Holsboer and Marcus Ising � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �81

Developmental Psychobiology

Structural Plasticity and Hippocampal FunctionBenedetta Leuner and Elizabeth Gould � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 111

Cognitive Neuroscience

A Bridge Over Troubled Water: Reconsolidation as a Link BetweenCognitive and Neuroscientific Memory Research TraditionsOliver Hardt, Einar Orn Einarsson, and Karim Nader � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 141

Cognitive Neural Prosthetics

Richard A. Andersen, Eun Jung Hwang, and Grant H. Mulliken � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 169

Speech Perception

Speech Perception and Language Acquisition in the First Year of LifeJudit Gervain and Jacques Mehler � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 191

vi

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

010.

61:5

69-5

98. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Col

orad

o -

Bou

lder

on

10/0

8/12

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

Page 32: Creativity - Leeds School of Businessleeds-faculty.colorado.edu/dahe7472/amabile creativity review.pdf · creativity. That publication was supplemented in 1988 by the Creativity Research

AR398-FM ARI 7 November 2009 7:47

Chemical Senses (Taste and Smell)

An Odor Is Not Worth a Thousand Words: From MultidimensionalOdors to Unidimensional Odor ObjectsYaara Yeshurun and Noam Sobel � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 219

Somesthetic and Vestibular Senses

Somesthetic SensesMark Hollins � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 243

Basic Learning and Conditioning

Learning: From Association to CognitionDavid R. Shanks � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 273

Comparative Psychology

Evolving the Capacity to Understand Actions, Intentions, and GoalsMarc Hauser and Justin Wood � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 303

Human Development: Processes

Child Maltreatment and MemoryGail S. Goodman, Jodi A. Quas, and Christin M. Ogle � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 325

Emotional, Social, and Personality Development

Patterns of Gender DevelopmentCarol Lynn Martin and Diane N. Ruble � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 353

Adulthood and Aging

Social and Emotional AgingSusan T. Charles and Laura L. Carstensen � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 383

Development in Societal Context

Human Development in Societal ContextAletha C. Huston and Alison C. Bentley � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 411

Genetics and Psychopathology

Epigenetics and the Environmental Regulationof the Genome and Its FunctionTie-Yuan Zhang and Michael J. Meaney � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 439

Social Psychology of Attention, Control, and Automaticity

Goals, Attention, and (Un)ConsciousnessAp Dijksterhuis and Henk Aarts � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 467

Contents vii

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

010.

61:5

69-5

98. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Col

orad

o -

Bou

lder

on

10/0

8/12

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

Page 33: Creativity - Leeds School of Businessleeds-faculty.colorado.edu/dahe7472/amabile creativity review.pdf · creativity. That publication was supplemented in 1988 by the Creativity Research

AR398-FM ARI 7 November 2009 7:47

Bargaining, Negotiation, Conflict, Social Justice

NegotiationLeigh L. Thompson, Jiunwen Wang, and Brian C. Gunia � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 491

Personality Development: Stability and Change

Personality Development: Continuity and Change Over theLife CourseDan P. McAdams and Bradley D. Olson � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 517

Work Motivation

Self-Regulation at WorkRobert G. Lord, James M. Diefendorff, Aaron C. Schmidt, and Rosalie J. Hall � � � � � � � � 543

Cognition in Organizations

CreativityBeth A. Hennessey and Teresa M. Amabile � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 569

Work Attitudes ( Job Satisfaction, Commitment, Identification)

The Intersection of Work and Family Life: The Role of AffectLillian T. Eby, Charleen P. Maher, and Marcus M. Butts � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 599

Human Factors (Machine Information, Person Machine Information,Workplace Conditions)

Cumulative Knowledge and Progress in Human FactorsRobert W. Proctor and Kim-Phuong L. Vu � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 623

Learning and Performance in Educational Settings

The Psychology of Academic AchievementPhilip H. Winne and John C. Nesbit � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 653

Personality and Coping Styles

Personality and CopingCharles S. Carver and Jennifer Connor-Smith � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 679

Indexes

Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 51–61 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 705

Cumulative Index of Chapter Titles, Volumes 51–61 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 710

Errata

An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Psychology articles may be found athttp://psych.annualreviews.org/errata.shtml

viii Contents

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

010.

61:5

69-5

98. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Col

orad

o -

Bou

lder

on

10/0

8/12

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.