Translate 
Abstract
ABSTRACT The definitions of creative and related concepts have been a topic of contention in the psychological literature. Green propose a resolution of those definitional problems by differentiating between two uses of creative, an adjectival form, referring to certain kinds of products, and a nominal form, referring to a particular kind of psychological process. The authors therefore propose that the study of creativity utilize two definitions. First, they adopt a product definition – a creative product is novel and useful – which is a variant of the standard definition already in the literature. They also propose their own new process definition – a creative process entails inner-directed attention in service of a generative goal. The present paper raises questions about the two-definition formulation. First, the two definitions can result in conflicting outcomes, which may not be helpful. Second, the inclusion of an evaluative term (useful) in the product definition is problematic, because useful is subjective and changes over time, rendering the definition of questionable long-term utility. Third, the process definition’s focus on internalized attention as a criterion for a creative process can also be questioned. It is concluded that the definitions proposed by Green et al. be rejected, and that both product and process definitions can be accommodated by defining creativity as the intentional production of novelty. However, the issues involved here are complex, and more discussion is needed before we can bring closure to the issues of the definition of creative and related concepts.
Published Version
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
