Creativity: a social approach.

Creativity has frequently been treated as a form of self-expression or a way of understanding or coping with life that is intimately connected with personal dignity, expression of one's inner being, self-actualization, and the like (e.g., Maslow, 1973; May, 1976; Rogers, 1961). Moustakis (1977) summarized the individualistic approach to creativity by seeing it as the pathway to living your own life your own way. Barton (1969) even concluded that creativity requires resistance to socialization, and Burkhardt (1985) took the theme of the individual against society further by arguing that the creative individual must fight against society's pathological desire for sameness. Sternberg and Lubart (1995) called this fight "defying the crowd," and labeled the tendency of certain creative individuals to resist society's pressure to conform "contrarianism."

Although it may not have been the intention of the writers just mentioned, creativity theory has thus sometimes involved "the glorification of individuals" (Boden, 1994, p. 4), and creativity has sometimes been treated as asocial or even antisocial in origin, purpose, content, and extent. Emphasis on the individual has meant that promoting creativity in the classroom has often been seen as fostering the growth of individual children according to their specific talents and needs (e.g., McLeod & Cropley, 1989). Among other things, this has led some teachers to an uneasy feeling that special educational provision for creative or otherwise gifted children is unfair or even socially divisive (e.g., Rader, 1976; Weiler, 1978). This paper's argument is that this is not the case.

The Importance of Products

Products constitute the public face of creativity: Thus, they must be included in an examination of creativity from a social point of view. The idea of product should be understood in a broad way. Products are often tangible, and may take the form of works of art, musical compositions, or written documents, or of machines, buildings, or other physical structures such as bridges and the like. They can also be intangible although relatively specific, such as plans and strategies in business, manufacturing, government and similar areas. Finally, they can consist of more general thoughts or ideas-systems for conceptualizing the world--as in philosophy, mathematics, or indeed all reflective disciplines.

Over the years various authors, such as Cropley (1967) and Albert (1990), have suggested restricting the study of creativity to person and process, arguing that products are too difficult to look at from a psychological point of view, for instance because of the instability of social judgments of products. However, the products of creativity are of particular interest in the present context, because it is largely through them that creativity achieves an impact on the social environment. Indeed, even in early writings in the modern era many writers emphasized the necessity of including products in discussions (e.g., Clifford, 1958; Gordon, 1961; Rossman, 1931). Guilford himself (e.g., 1950) referred to the need for creativity to lead to something useful. More recently, the emphasis on creative products was put with particular vigor by Bailin (1988, p. 5): "The only coherent way in which to view creativity is in terms of the production of valuable products." For teachers this means that it is necessary to consider not just the person and the process of generation of novelty but also the products of these two factors.

The Social Approach to Creativity

The social approach was visible when Rhodes (1961, p. 305) added the fourth "P" (press; i.e., environment) to the "three Ps" of creativity: person, product, process. Since Rhodes, creativity increasingly has been seen as a social phenomenon. Csikszentmihalyi (1999, p. 315) put it very clearly: "Original thought does not exist in a vacuum." The non-vacuum factor he had in mind was the surrounding society, and especially "social agreement" which is "one of the constitutive elements of creativity, without which the phenomenon would not exist" (Csikszentmihalyi, 1988, p. 327). Emphasis on the social aspect of creativity is looked at in this paper in terms of four dimensions:

1. Understanding creativity as a social force with social responsibility, in addition to being a pathway to individual self-fulfillment.

2. Defining what is creative in social as well as individual terms.

3. Recognizing the role of the society in influencing how much creativity and what kind of creativity emerge in a particular society and era.

4. Understanding the social aspects of the driving force for creativity (motivation).

At the practical level, these issues offer teachers expanded insights into how to define creativity, as well as how to recognize and encourage it in the classroom. These will be discussed at various points in the paper.

Creativity as the Servant of Society

Even in the ancient world there was interest in creativity as a socially useful phenomenon. To take two examples: Plato's Ion emphasized society's need for creative people, and urged the state to foster their development. The Chinese Emperor, Han Wu-di, who lived in the second century BCE, was intensely interested in fostering creative fantasy, because he saw it as an important resource of the state. There are two aspects to the socially useful dimension of creativity: (a) creativity as an aspect of spiritual-aesthetic life that helps society become more enlightened, humane, and "healthy" (see Cropley, 1990), and (b) creativity in the sense of human capital (see Walberg and Stariha, 1992), that increases physical well-being and financial prosperity, and makes the nation strong and safe.

The more abstract, spiritual-aesthetic effects of creativity on society were discussed by Cropley (1990) in terms of mental health. He saw creativity as fostering healthy psychological adjustment, tolerance, and openness in a society, while at the same time itself being facilitated by a mentally healthy society. Early in discussions following Guilford's (1950) paper, writers such as Toynbee (1962) emphasized the importance of creativity for not only the spiritual but also for the physical survival of society. In the last two decades, creativity has increasingly come to be seen as a vital resource in business and government (e.g., Higgins, 1994). In emerging economies creativity is often seen as the key to rapid economic and social development, especially modernization and its hoped for benefits of improved education, better health care, and the like.

The relationship between creativity and the social environment is reciprocal: The environment permits or calls forth creativity and directs or guides the products it leads to, but creativity also changes the environment. For instance, Sosa and Gero (2003) argued that the Sydney Opera House in Australia not only introduced novel architectural and building techniques, but became part of the Australian consciousness and, in their view, increased the society's openness for novelty. It thus seems that there is little reason for teachers to fear that fostering creativity involves giving advantages to individuals at the expense of the larger group. On the contrary, fostering creativity is good for society.

Social Definition of What Is Creative

Jackson and Messick (1965) distinguished between external and internal criteria for judging the creativity of products. Besemer and O'Quin (1999) emphasized novelty (the product is original, surprising, and germinal), resolution (the product is valuable, logical, useful, and understandable), and elaboration and synthesis (the product is organic, elegant, complex, and well-crafted). From the point of view of a social definition of creativity, the external criteria are more important. The decisive external property of creative products is that they cause surprise in beholders (Brunet, 1962). Surprise occurs when something is unexpectedly different from the usual, that is, it deviates from what things have been like until now. It is the deviation from what already exists that yields the surprise. In a certain sense it is thus not the product itself that defines its own creativity but its effects on the people in the particular setting: the contrast of the novelty with the constraints of the external world (see Boden, 1994).

The idea of deviation from the usual can be looked at in terms of norms. For present purposes, norms can be thought of as rules about the behavior and ways of treating other people that are acceptable in a particular social setting. Norms also specify what kinds of ideas are tolerable and what constitutes a good person. They provide filters (Fromm, 1990) through which behaviors and ideas must pass, and carry out constant surveillance (Amabile, Goldfarb, and Brackfield, 1990) in order to detect and deter deviance. Maintenance of a high level of conformity with social norms has the advantage that life becomes predictable, since it is more or less known what can be expected in everyday situations. However, the disadvantage is that unusual, unexpected behavior is discouraged and becomes rare. Societies are prepared to tolerate breaking the rules to a certain degree. Which rules can be broken or how large a deviation is accepted vary from society to society and from time to time, as well as according to the age, social position, occupation and other characteristics of the individual doing the rule breaking. For instance, the British or North American societies would tolerate deviations from the norms for behavior at a wedding by a 21-year-old art student that would not be tolerated from the local bank manager.

Thus, the term creativity is not applied to anything and everything that surprises people. Some surprising behavior is regarded not as creative but simply as deviant, and is treated as ignorant, eccentric, crazy or criminal. Csikszentmihalyi (1999) described creativity as "acceptance by a particular field of judges" (p. 316). In other words, not merely deviation from the usual but also social acceptance of the deviation is necessary. Indeed, there are norms about breaking the norms. Some societies and some groups are prepared to tolerate dramatic breaking of their rules; indeed, tolerance of transgressing against norms may be one of the norms of the group! An interaction between society and the definition of creativity can be seen again here too: Creativity is not only determined by social criteria, but itself determines the criteria. Among other things, creativity may (a) expand the way an existing domain is conceptualized in the society, thus opening up new approaches (seminality); (b) suggest new issues not previously noticed (germinality); (c) alter expectations of products, or (d) provide new criteria for judging later solutions.

The classroom is an example of a social setting with both formal rules such as when to arrive and leave or how to address the teacher, and also informal norms deriving from customary practice in the classroom. These latter norms are particularly open to the influence of the teacher. They may include positive or negative reception of unexpected behavior, high or low levels of openness for surprising questions or suggestions, and the like. A task for the teacher is to promote and model such norms as tolerance, openness, and flexibility.

The Effect of the Amount of Creativity

What are the properties of deviation from the usual that determine whether or not it is regarded as creative? In 1997, after losing a chess match to the computer program "Deep Blue," Garry Kasparov complained in the press that the program actually had not played chess, despite adhering to the formal rules. To Kasparov, Deep Blue's moves, although within the rules of chess, seemed to involve cheating because, although novel and highly effective (after all, Deep Blue won), they were too far outside the traditional boundaries. In a study with schoolboy soccer players in Hamburg, a student of mine (Herrmann, 1987) taught his team to make totally unexpected moves, such as passing the ball straight to an opponent with the words, "Here. Have it if you want it!" Although perfectly legal, this caused consternation among opposing players and outbursts of rage among their coaches, who found it so surprising that they denounced it as cheating! Apparently, the amount of deviation is decisive. Very large departures from what the group in question is used to may be socially unacceptable and even labeled "cheating," "mental illness," or "criminality." In the case of the classroom, this means that students need to learn how to link novelty they generate to what exists, so that the amount of deviation is not too great for other people to tolerate, or else risk being labeled rebellious or weird.

The Effect of Kind of Creativity

However, the kind of deviation also may be important. For instance, someone who deviated by being uninhibited and unconventional in a setting where sober industriousness was the norm (let us say, an engineer) would be treated differently for the same behaviors from someone in a setting where such behavior was admired in, perhaps, avant-garde theatre or dance. In contrast, generation of novelty through application of a high level of technical skill might be highly prized among engineers, but regarded as boringly conventional in the dance or theatre groups just mentioned.

The socially derived distinction between kinds of creativity can be regarded as involving on the one hand socially radical, on the other socially orthodox effective novelty. From a social point of view, radical creativity would involve generating effective novelty through willingness to venture into the area of socially frowned-upon ideas or actions. Orthodox creativity would involve generating effective novelty while remaining within socially prescribed limits. This distinction is similar to Millward and Freeman's (2002) distinction between change that stays within the system (what I call orthodox creativity) as against change that challenges it (i.e., radical creativity).

In the 1840s the Austrian obstetrician, Ignaz Semmelweiss, dramatically reduced the incidence of death from puerperal fever in those lying in hospital in Vienna simply by getting doctors to wash their hands before touching women who had recently given birth. However, this novelty, although highly effective in reducing the death rate, was seen by other doctors as insulting since it implied that they were dirty. Far from showing gratitude, his colleagues labelled him a crackpot who was insulting their honor, and he was rejected and driven into madness. The death rate returned to its earlier levels! Had Semmelweiss found a socially acceptable way of presenting his effectively novel procedures, the outcome probably would have been quite different.

Intuitively, radical creativity seems to be the more problematic for teachers: Although some, such as drama, art, or music teachers, might tolerate or even prefer it, others, such as physics, technology, or history teachers, might prefer orthodox creativity. Furthermore, the negative consequences of radical creativity in the wrong place (e.g., wild ideas in a physics class) probably would be much more severe than those of orthodox creativity also in the wrong place (e.g., application of strict logic in a drama class). Evariste Galois, the French mathematician, produced work of such novelty that he is now regarded as one of history's most creative mathematicians (see Rothman, 1982). In secondary school he was recognized as "original," but also was judged by teachers other than his mathematics teacher to be "singular" and "bizarre." Even the mathematics teacher (who initially supported him against other teachers and whom Galois described as having inspired him) recommended that he leave school.

These considerations suggest a 2 X 2 classification system in which the X-axis would define kind of deviation from the usual (orthodox vs. radical); the Y-axis would specify the amount of deviation. The upper fight-hand quadrant, for instance (see Figure 1) would involve above average to high levels of radical creativity, the lower left-hand quadrant below average to low levels of orthodox creativity, and so on. Differences among disciplines, teachers, and students all can be classified using this grid. In schools, some disciplines are frequently open to high levels of radical creativity (e.g., drama or art), whereas others are mainly restricted to low levels of orthodox creativity (perhaps physics, mathematics), some to neither (e.g., foreign languages, as they are often taught), and so on. Gluck, Ernst, and Unger (2002) summarized research showing that there were differences along these lines between teachers too: for instance art and physics teachers. As a group, the former tolerate or encourage originality, risk-taking, impulsivity, and nonconformity (in my terms, radical creativity), whereas physics teachers as a group prefer problem solving, responsibility, and reliability (orthodox creativity or no creativity at all). In a similar way, some students display radical creativity, some orthodox creativity, and some little of either.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

This classification system is depicted in Figure 1, where it is used to rate a number of disciplines. Thus, placement of the discipline "Shop" in the lower left-hand corner means that this subject is rated as involving low levels of orthodox novelty, the placement of "Art" in the upper right-hand corner that this discipline is rated as involving high levels of radical novelty. It is important to note that the placement of disciplines in this figure is not meant to reflect objective data about the disciplines. The ratings are offered purely for exemplary purposes and are based on my own subjective assessment of the disciplines in question as I have experienced them. My own shop teacher in elementary school, for instance, was extremely strict, and tolerated no radical deviation at all. This reflected the teacher's concern that we were using sharp and otherwise dangerous tools and machines, where deviation from the usual could have disastrous consequences. However, a small amount of extremely orthodox deviation was permitted when making, for instance, a wooden cake tray for an exhibition. We were allowed to choose among several designs and to make small changes in the decoration--for example, I chose to insert a diamond of darker wood in the surface of my tray (instead of a circle), and received a prize for my creativity.

This classification system can be expanded to take account of a further distinction: research such as that of Simonton (1997) suggests that some societies are product oriented, focusing on producing novel works such as art, literature, machines and gadgets, preferably high-tech gadgets, whereas others are process oriented, focusing on techniques, production, and management procedures. Different communities of experts or specialists also may reflect this difference: Engineers, let us say, may place greatest value on product-oriented novelty, philosophers on process-oriented novelty. Much the same may be true of teachers. An example would be the difference between those mother-tongue teachers who prefer students to produce imaginative and original text (product orientation) and those who emphasize planning, correct grammar and syntax, checking for accuracy, and the like (process orientation). These considerations suggest an extension of Figure 1 by adding a third dimension: process orientation vs. product orientation. In schools, mathematics, for instance, may typically be oriented toward processes showing low levels of orthodox novelty, drama toward products showing high levels of radical novelty, and so on.

Intuitively, the happiest classroom situation would occur when teacher, discipline, and student were all located in the same quadrant, especially in the case of creative students. Indeed, using an ecological metaphor Harrington (1999) argued that there is no single best set of environmental circumstances that is favorable for everybody's creativity, but that the decisive factor is the goodness of fit between the characteristics of the environment and those of the individual. Figure 1 provides a schema for diagnosing goodness of fit in terms of demands of the discipline, teachers' orientation to novelty, and students' production of novelty.

The figure also suggests an explanation of findings such as those of Scott (1999) that many teachers regard creative students as disruptive nuisances, or the practical observation that it is not uncommon for some teachers to see a particular student as highly creative and a pleasure to have in the class, while others regard the same child as recklessly disruptive. This was the situation with Poincare described earlier. His problem was that he produced products showing high levels of radical novelty in a system focused on processes with a low level of orthodox novelty. Only his mathematics teacher was willing (and only at first) to tolerate such behavior and he was regarded by Poincare as inspirational.

Social Motivation of Creativity

Many specific creative products are developed "to satisfy the needs of ... social groups" (Sosa and Gero, 2003, p. 27). The needs may be concrete and down-to-earth, such as cheaper power or a cure for a particular disease, but they also may be more general such as better educational methods or more beautiful ways of combining colors on canvas, or more abstract such as improved ways of expressing feelings through music. The idea that creativity is linked with meeting the needs of social groups means that the problems creative people seek to solve are at least partly socially determined. Where there is no social awareness that a problem exists, there may be no drive to produce solutions, and no creativity. A simple example is the area of design: A common artefact may be awkward to use and ineffective, perhaps even dangerous. However, it may be so familiar to so many people that society has become accustomed to its disadvantages, and may be able to use it very effectively, despite the disadvantages and inconvenience. In this case there is no social pressure to introduce effective novelty and, in a sense, no problem, no matter how bad the design may be.

An example is the automobile. The internal combustion engine is highly inefficient, cars pollute the environment, and they are very dangerous. Despite this, novelty in automobile design is limited to tinkering with details, and no radical departure from the basic approach has been seen since the introduction of the horseless carriage about 120 years ago: People sit in a box with a wheel at each corner while the box is propelled by its own portable power source and runs along the ground, occasionally colliding with stationary objects or other similar boxes, with sometimes catastrophic consequences for the passengers and the objects. Even an innovation like hybrid cars retains all the fundamental characteristics of the automobile as they have existed from the very beginning. Problem awareness is limited to the issue of how to polish what already exists, and contains no seeds of a radical new approach, such as a device that does not carry its own power source, does not run on the ground, or is not steered by a driver who is also a passenger.

Although the hybrid car clearly involves effective novelty, I would describe its creativity as (a) low level, (b) orthodox, and (c) product-oriented. A high level of radical novelty focused on the process of changing existing concepts of transportation might well lead to a completely different form of transportation, even if it is difficult to imagine what this might involve. The existing approach is so deeply ingrained that alternative thoughts are likely to be rejected out of hand: an electronic matter transmitter, perhaps.

Lack of social acceptance of radical novelty may well be the typical situation in practical life settings such as engineering because of the catastrophic consequences when novelty ultimately proves to be ineffective, as in the case of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge collapse in November, 1940. In the classroom, however, the situation is different. Teachers should seek to remove the pressure to produce orthodox products. They can provide an environment in which socially dictated states of affairs (such as the domination of thinking about transportation by the conventional automobile) are seen as a problem, and attempts are made to look at the issue in a novel way. Such an environment is characterized by problem awareness or problem seeking (for a summary of problem seeking see Getzels and Csikszentmihalyi, 1976).

Dynamics of Social Influence on Creativity

Naturally, social influences on creativity occur via the various psychological mechanisms that influence learning, such as differential reinforcement. However, of greater interest here are social mechanisms such as modeling, mentoring, and social roles.

Models and Mentors

In a comprehensive study of 20th-century British novelists, Crozier (1999) concluded that differences in their creative productivity were largely attributable to the influence of social support factors. Csikszentmihalyi (1988) postulated that social support networks are vital determinants of creativity in the lives of individual creators. In a discussion of introduction of novelty into an organization, Mumford and Moertl (2003) emphasized the importance of, among other things, a "persuasive and effective advocate" (p. 264). Turning to schools, Treffinger (1995) referred to the presence in the environment of creativity "assisters." These include parents and teachers, classmates, sporting idols, and similar people. As Bloom (1985) showed, the people need not be powerful figures at all, but can be unsung heroes such as a grade-school teacher or a college faculty member.

One important function of such people is to offer creative individuals new life perspectives: Diaghiley is remembered as the father of Russian ballet and Stravinsky is one of the most famous composers who emerged in that country. Yet, both were law students at university in Saint Petersburg around 1900! Both came under the influence of the revered musician, Rimsky-Kofsakoff, who advised each of them to give up law and focus on music, strongly discouraging Diaghilev, however, from seeking a career as a composer (Kennedy & Bourne, 1996). The result was perhaps a loss to the law, but a vast enrichment of the arts.

Another important function of such people is to offer creative individuals a safe space where they can break social rules without punishment, thus protecting them from social or other sanctions (such as flunking a course). Another is to offer them a positive social perspective on themselves, for instance the view that they are not crazy outcasts but creative people. This recognition can help to foster the courage to deviate from what everyone else is doing, among other things by offering an opportunity to test the limits of the acceptable without risk or feelings of guilt. Mentors also can help creative people to communicate their ideas to others. In view of the problems associated with levels of radical creativity that are too great for the social environment to tolerate (see earlier discussions), an important task for them is that of showing creative students how to communicate their ideas in ways that the group can accept.

James, Clark, and Cropanzano (1999) focused on the effect of role models on creativity. Although they were talking about organizations, they themselves drew attention to the generalizability of their conclusions to other areas (such as education). James and his colleagues concluded that models (a) make people aware of creativity as a legitimate goal, (b) show how to generate novelty, (c) awaken positive emotion about creative activity, and (d) provide rewards for being creative. Point (a) involves both general and specific effects: Creativity itself is legitimized as a goal, while attention is directed toward certain kinds of creativity. Although factors such as awareness of creativity are not necessarily social in nature, the important point for present purposes is that such factors are affected by social mechanisms such as the effects of a model or a mentor.

Groups

Since Osborn (1957), many authors have emphasized the beneficial effects of groups on creativity. Larey and Paulus (1999) listed the following advantages of groups: They (a) provide information, (b) motivate creative activity, (c) provide models, and (d) give feedback. They also seem to encourage idea production, as for instance in systematic group procedures like brainstorming. As Harrington put it, they provide a "responsive" or even "nourishing" audience (1999, p. 333). In many classrooms, however, there is a danger that group processes inhibit creativity. Larey and Paulus summarized creativity-inhibiting tendencies in groups as involving: (a) free riding (individuals reduce their effort and leave it up to the group), (b) evaluation apprehension (fear of negative reactions from the others), (c) production blocking (one person dominates and blocks others), (d) social comparison (people make sure that their ideas conform to the group tendency), (e) matching down (out of, for instance, solidarity, the standard drops to that of the weakest member of the group), (f) focus on shared information (special knowledge of individuals is ignored or kept hidden because of the factors already listed), (g) premature closure (to keep the peace or because of the urge to be democratic groups agree too quickly), and (h) fixed roles or fixed power structure (there are leaders and followers or bosses and minions; the former possess authority and the others do what they are told).

A further possible inhibitory effect of groups is to be found in their transmission and enforcement of stereotyped roles (e.g., Millward and Freeman, 2002). These two authors give the example of traditional roles of females and the deleterious effect this can have on their achievement as managers. The effects of social roles can readily be observed in the classroom, where students may accept, for instance, the role of passive recipient of facts, and this role may be reinforced by the group, for instance by expressing dissatisfaction with classmates who question the usual or come up with unexpected suggestions. In a climate of intoxication with group work, teachers need to be aware of these negative effects.

The Social Climate

In addition to relatively concrete assisters and resisters, however, it is possible to speak of a more abstract and general element of an innovation-friendly (or unfriendly) environment: its climate (see Ekvall, 1999). Applied to the classroom, climate is a metaphor for describing a combination of behaviors, attitudes, values, and feelings that are common to the people in the classroom. For our purposes, the climate affects what the group's members regard as normal, how much and what kind of deviation from the normal (novelty) they will tolerate, and what rewards or sanctions they impose on those who introduce novelty (e.g., grades, punishment or reward, ridicule or respect, encouragement or discouragement, high or low status). Openness is important to a climate that encourages creativity: for example, the willingness to take novelty seriously and engage with it instead of avoiding it (McRae, 1987). Further factors are freedom (e.g., tolerance of risks and uncertainty) and support (e.g., lack of punitive reaction against mistakes), as well as placing a high value on creativity and giving social status to those who introduce novelty (Harrington, 1999).

The creativity-facilitating social climate involves a general feeling that variability is welcome and that people who generate it are respected. It involves factors like tolerance for novelty, encouragement and recognition of the value of generation of variability, decision-making processes that do not stifle change by bogging it down in a quagmire of discussions and procedures, contact with models of creative behavior, provision of appropriate opportunities, as well as people who encourage generation of variability. When the factors just discussed take a favorable form, they yield a congenial climate that encourages people to feel that novelty generation is welcome, or even brings improved status, and that they are central to the setting's life, instead of being outsiders. Of course the climate can display the reverse pattern, and thus be unfavorable for generation of variability.

The position of children with regard to climate differs from that of adults. At least to a certain extent, adults are able to choose the climates they are exposed to, although of course to differing degrees, whereas children are more or less compelled to function in a particular setting. Furthermore, children are exposed to powerful forces of conformity from media, parents, and peers. They have had little opportunity (for instance because of their youth) to develop a strong sense of identity, self-worth, and the like, and thus seem to be especially susceptible to such forces. Because of this, it is of particular importance that teachers use their status and authority to establish a congenial classroom environment.

Practical Guidelines

Research (for a summary see Ekvall, 1999) suggests that leadership affects whether or not a climate is favorable for creativity. For the present discussion, this means that teachers can promote a creativity-fostering classroom, or of course hinder it. I turn now to the practical implications of the social approach presented here for fostering creativity in the classroom. Without denying the importance of creative thinking, ability, knowledge, and skills (i.e., cognition); of motivation, attitudes and self-image (i.e., personal properties); or of identification and diagnosis of strengths and weaknesses (e.g., psychometrics and identification); attention can be paid to the implications of the social factors outlined earlier for classroom practice. Table 1 offers examples of such implications, stated in the form of guidelines.

These guidelines are stated here in very general terms. What is needed now is to work out their practical implications in terms of lesson plans for students in a wide variety of disciplines at all school levels (including tertiary education). This task lies beyond the scope of this paper.

Manuscript submitted December 28, 2004.

Revision accepted July 15, 2005.

REFERENCES

Albert, R. S. (1990). Identity, experiences, and career choice among the exceptionally gifted and talented. In M. A. Runco (Ed.), Theories of creativity (pp. 13-34). Newbury Park. CA: Sage.

Amabile, T. M., Goldfarb, P., and Brackfield. S. C. (1990). Social influences on creativity: Evaluation, coaction, surveillance. Creativity Research Journal. 3, 6-21.

Bailin, S. (1988). Achieving extraordinary ends: An essay on creativity. Dordrecht. Netherlands: Kluwer.

Barron, F. X. (1969). Creative person and creative process. New York: Holt, Rinehart. and Winston.

Besemer, S. P., & O'Quin. K. (1999). Confirming the three factor Creative Product Analysis Matrix model in an American sample. Creativity Research Journal, 12, 287-296.

Bloom, B. S. (1985). Developing relent in young people. New York: Ballantine.

Boden, M. A. (1994). What is creativity? In M. A. Boden (Ed.), Dimensions of creativity (pp. 75-118). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Brunet, J. S. (1962). The conditions of creativity, in H. Gruber. G. Terrell, & M. Wertheimer (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to cognition (pp. 1-30). New York: Atherton.

Burkhardt, H. (1985). Gleichheitswahn Parteienwahn [Obsession with equality]. Tubingen. Germany: Hohenrain.

Clifford, P. I. (1958). Emotional contacts with the external world manifested by selected groups of highly creative chemists and mathematicians. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 8, 3-26.

Cropley, A. J. (1967). Creativity. London: Longman.

Cropley, A. J. (1990). Creativity and mental health in everyday life, Creativity Research Journal, 3, 167-178.

Crozier, W. R. (1999). Age and individual differences in artistic productivity: Trends within a sample of British novelists. Creativity Research Journal. 12, 197-204.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). Society. culture, and person: A system view of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.). The nature of creativity (pp. 325-339). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.). Handbook of creativity (pp. 313-335). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Ekvall, G. (1999). Creative climate. In M. A. Runco & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (Vol. 1, pp. 403-412). San Diego. CA: Academic Press.

Fromm, E. (1990). Greatness and limitations of Freud's thought. New York: New American Library.

Getzels, J. W., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1976). The creative vision: A longitudinal study of problem finding in art. New York: Wiley.

Gluck, J., Ernst. R., and Unger, F. (2002). How creatives define creativity: Definitions reflect different types of creativity. Creativity Research Journal. 14, 55-67.

Gordon, W. J. (1961). Synectics. New York: Harper.

Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist. 5, 444-454.

Harrington, D. M. (1999). Conditions and settings/environment. In M. A. Runco & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (Vol. 1, pp. 323-340). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Herrmann, W. (1987). Auswirkungen versthiedener Fussballtrainingsstile auf Leistungsmotivation [Effects of different football coaching styles on motivation]. Unpublished Master's thesis. University of Hamburg, Germany.

Higgins, J. M. (1994). 101 Creative problem solving techniques: The handbook of new ideas for business. Winter Park, FL: The New Management Publishing Company.

Jackson, P. W., & Messick. S. (1965). The person, the product, and the response: Conceptual problems in the assessment of creativity. Journal of Personality. 33, 309-329.

James, K., Clark. K., & Cropanzano. R. (1999). Positive and negative creativity in groups, institutions, and organizations: A model and theoretical extension. Creativity Research Journal. 12, 211-226.

Kennedy, M., & Bourne, J. (1996). Concise Oxford dictionary of music (4th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

Larey, T. S., & Paulus, P. B. (1999). Group preference and convergent tendencies in small groups: A content analysis of group brainsforming performance. Creativitiy Research Journal, 12, 175-184.

Maslow, A. H. (1973). Creativity in self-actualizing people. In A. Rothenberg & C. R. Hausman (Eds.), The creativity question (pp. 86-92). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

May, R. (1976). The courage to create. New York: Bantam.

McCrae, R. R. (1987). Creativity, divergent thinking, and openness to experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 52, 1258-1265.

McLeod, J., & Cropley, A. J. (1989). Fostering academic excellence. Oxford: Pergamon.

Millward, L. J., & Freeman, H. (2002). Role expectations as constraints to innovation: The case of female managers. Creativity Research Journal. 14, 93-109.

Moustakis, C. E. (1977). Creative life. New York: Van Nostrand.

Mumford, M. D., & Moertl, P. (2003). Cases of social innovation: Lessons from two innovations in the 20th Century. Creativity Research Journal, 13, 261-266.

Osborn, A. (1957). Applied imagination: Principles and procedures of creative problem solving. New York: Scribner's.

Rader, J. R. (1976). The development and evaluation of a simulation on the identification of the gifted and talented. Viewpoint, 52, 33-52.

Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. Phi Delta Kappan, 42, 305-310.

Rogers. C. R. (1961). On becoming a person, Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Rossman, J. (1931). The psychology of the inventor: A study of the patentee. Washington. DC: Inventors' Publishing.

Rothman, A. (1982). Genius and biographers: The fictionalization of Evariste Galois. American Mathematical Monthly, 89, 84-106.

Scott, C. L. (1999). Teachers' biases toward creative children. Creativity Research Journal, 12, 321-328.

Simonton, D. K. (1997). Historiometric studies of creative genius. In M. A. Runco (Ed.), The creativity research handbook (Vol. 1, pp. 3-28). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Sosa, R., & Gero, J. S. (2003). Design and change: A model of situated creativity. In C. Bento, A. Cardosa, & J. S. Gero (Eds.), Approaches to creativity in artificial intelligence and cognitive science (pp. 25-34). Acapulco, Mexico: IJCAI03.

Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1995). Defying the crowd: Cultivating creativity in a culture of conformity. New York: Free Press.

Toynbee, A. (1962). Has America neglected its creative minority? California Monographs. 72, 7-10.

Treffinger, D. J. (1995). Creative Problem Solving: Overview and educational implications. Educational Psychology Review, 7, 301-312.

Walberg, H. J., & Stariha, W. E. (1992). Productive human capital: Learning, creativity, and eminence. Creativity Research Journal, 5, 323-340.

Weiler, D. (1978). The Alpha children: California's brave new world for the gifted. Phi Delta Kappan, 60, 185-187.

Arthur Cropley was a secondary school teacher in Australia, England, and Canada, and is now emeritus professor of psychology at the University of Hamburg. He has published extensively on creativity since 1965, including two earlier papers in this journal, and received the International Creativity Prize of the World Council for Gifted and Talented Children in 1997. E-mail: [e-mail]

Table 1

Social guidelines for creativity-facilitating instruction

Self-image    See yourself as a participant in a group, of which
                students are also members.
              See yourself as a source of assisting signals for
                students' creativity.

Climate       Protect against negative effects of the group.
              Provide an environment where "deviance" is accepted.
              Show students how to present ideas in ways that the
                group can accept.

Instruction   Emphasize the importance of creativity as a social
                factor.
              Draw attention to social shortcomings in what exists.
              Discuss the social consequences of innovations in your
                discipline.
              Discuss the effects of social factors on the creativity
                of people mentioned in your lessons (amount and kind).

              Discuss the effects of society on creativity.
              Discuss how society sees creativity.
              Discuss ethical issues in creativity.
              Honor those who generate novelty in front of other
                students, especially in class.

Assessment    Encourage going beyond the rules, but do not accept or
                reject ideas simply because they oppose the zeitgeist.
              Encourage students to test the limits of the acceptable
                in their assignments.
              Encourage students to pursue topics in their own way.
                Reward them for doing so.
              Show students how to present unusual ideas without
                exceeding other people's ability to tolerate novelty.
              In grading, identify and reward socially-tolerable
                deviation from the usual.
              Use rewards that are particularly attractive to
                creative individuals (e.g., freedom to select
                future assignments).