Creativity is an indispensable force in intellectual, social, cultural, and economic development. Yet societal forces conspire to erode it. Educators have despaired for many years over how schools often fail to encourage creativity, but society as a whole is just as guilty. But how do schools and society fail to encourage, or actually even erode, creativity? This essay addresses this question.
Purpose/Objective/Research Question/Focus of Study
The goal of our research was to specify the specific societal forces that erode creativity. We have labeled these forces ERODE: Education, Resources, Opportunities, Diffusion, and Exaggeration. The bottom line is that, although our society claims to want creativity, it most wants it when no one is negatively affected. Because creativity almost always negatively affects some people and groups, society tends to be much more supportive of creativity in theory than in practice. We show why.
Research Design
Our research design is an analysis of the forces in society that erode creativity. We used historical analysis, media analysis, and analysis of educational practice to draw our conclusions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Adarves-YornoI., PostmesT., & HaslamS. A. (2006). Social identity and the recognition of creativity in groups. British Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 479—497.
2.
Adarves-YornoI., PostmesT., & HaslamS. A. (2007). Creative innovation or crazy irrelevance? The contribution of group norms and social identity to creative behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 410—416.
3.
AljughaimanA., & Mowrer-ReynoldsE. (2005). Teachers' conceptions of creativity and creative students. Journal of Creative Behavior, 39, 17—34.
4.
AnaniadouK., & ClaroM. (2009). 21st century skills and competencies for new millennium learners in OECD countries. OECD Education Working Papers, No. 41. Paris, France: OECD Publishing. doi:10.1787/218525261154
5.
ArndtJ., GreenbergJ., SolomonS., PyszczynskiT., & SchimelJ. (1999). Creativity and terror management: The effects of creative activity on guilt and social projection following mortality salience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 19—32.
6.
BaerJ. (2010). Is creativity domain specific? In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 321—341).
7.
BaerJ. (2011). How divergent thinking tests mislead us: Are the Torrance Tests still relevant in the 21st century?Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5, 309—313.
8.
BeghettoR. A. (2013). Killing ideas softly? The promise and perils of creativity in the classroom. Charlotte, NC: IAP Information Age Publishing.
9.
BeghettoR. A., & KaufmanJ. C. (2014). Classroom contexts for creativity. High Ability Studies, 25, 53—69.
10.
BeghettoR. A., KaufmanJ. C., & BaerJ. (2014). Teaching for creativity in the Common Core classroom. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
11.
BrennanJ., & MagnessP. (2016). Estimating the cost of justice for adjuncts: A case study in university business ethics. Journal Of Business Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10551-016-3013-1
ChartH., GrigorenkoE. L., & SternbergR. J. (2008). Identification: The Aurora Battery. In PluckerJ. A., & CallahanC. M. (Eds.), Critical issues and practices in gifted education (pp. 281—301). Waco, TX: Prufrock.
CraftA. (Ed.) (2004). Creativity in schools: Tensions and dilemmas. New York, NY: Routledge.
16.
CsikszentmihalyiM. (1999). Implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity. In SternbergR. J. (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 313—335). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
17.
DavidsonJ. E., & SternbergR. J. (Eds.). (2003). The psychology of problem solving. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
18.
DearyI. J., & WhalleyL. J. (2008). A lifetime of intelligence: The Scottish mental surveys of 1932 and 1947. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
EidelmanS., & CrandallC. S. (2012). Bias in favor of the status quo. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 6, 270—281.
21.
EidelmanS., CrandallC. S., & PattershallJ. (2009). The existence bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 765—775.
22.
EidelmanS., PattershallJ., & CrandallC. S. (2010). Longer is better. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 993—998.
23.
FlynnJ. R. (2012). Are we getting smarter? Rising IQ in the twenty-first century. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
24.
FrenschP. A., & SternbergR. J. (1989). Expertise and intelligent thinking: When is it worse to know better? In SternbergR. J. (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of human intelligence (Vol. 5, pp. 157—188). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
25.
GangadharbatlaH. (2010). Technology component: A modified systems approach to creative thought. Creativity Research Journal, 22, 219—227.
26.
GoelS., MasonW., & WattsD. J. (2010). Real and perceived attitude agreement in social networks. Journal of Personality And Social Psychology, 99, 611—621.
27.
GreenbergJ., SolomonS., & PyszczynskiT. (1997). Terror management theory of self-esteem and social behavior: Empirical assessments and conceptual refinements. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 29, pp. 61–139). New York, NY: Academic Press.
28.
GuilfordJ. P. (1967). Creativity: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Creative Behavior, 1, 3—14.
29.
GuilfordJ. P., & HoepfnerR. (1966). Creative potential is related to measure of IQ and verbal comprehension. Indian Journal of Psychology, 41, 7—16.
30.
HaslamS. A., Adarves-YornoI., PostmesT., & JansL. (2013). The collective origins of valued originality: A social identity approach to creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17, 384—401.
31.
HeidenreichS., & SpiethP. (2013). Why innovations fail—The case of passive and active innovation resistance. International Journal of Innovation Management, 17, 1—42.
32.
HermanJ. L. (2004). The effects of testing on instruction. In FuhrmanS. H., & ElmoreR. F., (Eds.), Redesigning accountability systems for education (pp. 141—166). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
33.
JanisI. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.
34.
KamenetzA. (2015). The test: Why our schools are obsessed with standardized testing—but you don't have to be. New York, NY: PublicAffairs.
35.
KaufmanJ. C. (2010). Using creativity to reduce ethnic bias in college admissions. Review of General Psychology, 14, 189—203.
36.
KaufmanJ. C. (2015). Why creativity isn't in IQ tests, why it matters, and why it won't change anytime soon … Probably. Journal of Intelligence, 3, 59—72.
37.
KaufmanJ. C. (2016). Creativity101 (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Springer.
38.
KaufmanJ. C., & BaerJ. (2012). Beyond new and appropriate: Who decides what is creative?Creativity Research Journal, 24, 83—91.
39.
KaufmanJ. C., PluckerJ. A., & RussellC. M. (2012). Identifying and assessing creativity as a component of giftedness. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 30, 60—73.
40.
KaufmanJ. C., & SternbergR. J. (Eds.). (2010). Cambridge handbook of creativity. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
41.
KimK. H. (2011). The creativity crisis: The decrease in creative thinking scores on the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 23, 285—295.
42.
KleijnenM., LeeN., & WetzelsM. (2009). An exploration of consumer resistance to innovation and its antecedents. Journal of Economic Psychology, 30, 344—357.
43.
KuhnT. (2012). The structure of scientific revolutions (4th ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
44.
LaukkanenT., SinkkonenS., KivijärviM., & LaukkanenP. (2007). Innovation resistance among mature consumers. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 24, 419—427.
45.
LeeC. S., & TherriaultD. J. (2013). The cognitive underpinnings of creative thought: A latent variable analysis exploring the roles of intelligence and working memory in three creative thinking processes. Intelligence, 41, 306—320.
46.
LicuananB. F., DaileyL. R., & MumfordM. D. (2007). Idea evaluation: Error in evaluating highly original ideas. Journal of Creative Behavior, 41, 1—27.
47.
LubartT. I., & SternbergR. J. (1988). Creativity: The individual, the systems, the approach. Creativity Research Journal, 1, 63—67.
48.
MoscoviciS., & ZavalloniM. (1969). The group as a polarizer of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 12, 125—135.
49.
MuellerJ. S., GoncaloJ. A., & KamdarD. (2011). Recognizing creative leadership: Can creative idea expression negatively relate to perceptions of leadership potential?Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 494—498.
50.
MuellerJ. S., MelwaniS., & GoncaloJ. A. (2012). The bias against creativity: Why people desire but reject creative ideas. Psychological Science, 23, 13—17.
51.
NeisserU. (Ed.). (1998). The rising curve: Long-term gains in IQ and related measures. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
52.
NiuW., & KaufmanJ. C. (2013). Creativity of Chinese and American people: A synthetic analysis. Journal of Creative Behavior, 47, 77—87.
53.
NiuW., & SternbergR. J. (2002). Contemporary studies on the concept of creativity: The East and the West. Journal of Creative Behavior, 36, 269—288.
54.
PluckerJ. A., & MakelM. C. (2010). Assessment of creativity. In KaufmanJ. C., & SternbergR. J. (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 48—73). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
55.
RamS., & ShethJ. N. (1989). Consumer resistance to innovations: the marketing problem and its solutions. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 6, 5—14.
56.
RavitchD. (2011). The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and choice are undermining education. New York, NY: Basic Books.
57.
RonsonJ. (2016). So you've been publicly shamed. New York, NY: Riverhead Books.
58.
RoutledgeC., ArndtJ., VessM., & SheldonK. M. (2008). The life and death of creativity: The effects of mortality salience on self versus social-directed creative expression. Motivation And Emotion, 32(4), 331—338.
59.
SternbergR. J. (1981a). A componential theory of intellectual giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 25, 86—93.
60.
SternbergR. J. (1981b). Testing and cognitive psychology. American Psychologist, 36, 1181—1189.
61.
SternbergR. J. (1984). What should intelligence tests test? Implications of a triarchic theory of intelligence for intelligence testing. Educational Researcher, 13, 5—15.
62.
SternbergR. J. (1987). Liking versus loving: A comparative evaluation of theories. Psychological Bulletin, 102, 331—345.
63.
SternbergR. J. (1988). The triarchic mind: A new theory of human intelligence. New York, NY: Viking.
64.
SternbergR. J. (1990). Metaphors of mind: Conceptions of the nature of intelligence. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
65.
SternbergR. J. (1997). What does it mean to be smart?Educational Leadership, 54(6), 20—24.
66.
SternbergR. J. (1998). Cupid's arrow: The course of love through time. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
67.
SternbergR. J. (1999). Intelligence as developing expertise. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 359—375.
68.
SternbergR. J. (Ed.). (2003a). Psychologists defying the crowd: Stories of those who battled the establishment and won. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
69.
SternbergR. J. (2003b). WICS: A model for leadership in organizations. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 2, 386—401.
70.
SternbergR. J. (2010). College admissions for the 21st century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
71.
SternbergR. J. (Ed.). (2013). Writing successful grant proposals from the top down and the bottom up. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
72.
SternbergR. J. (2016a). Our testing culture increases general intelligence at the expense of creativity and wisdom. Manuscript submitted for publication.
73.
SternbergR. J. (2016b). What universities can be. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
74.
SternbergR. J., BonneyC. R., GaboraL., KarelitzT., & CoffinL. (2010). Broadening the spectrum of undergraduate admissions. College and University, 86(1), 2—17.
75.
SternbergR. J., BonneyC. R., GaboraL, & MerrifieldM. (2012). WICS: A model for college and university admissions. Educational Psychologist, 47(1), 30—41.
76.
SternbergR. J., JarvinL., & GrigorenkoE. L. (2009). Teaching for wisdom, intelligence, creativity, and success. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
77.
SternbergR. J., KaufmanJ. C., & PretzJ. E. (2002). The creativity conundrum. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
78.
SternbergR. J., & LubartT. I. (1992). Buy low and sell high: An investment approach to creativity. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1(1), 1—5.
79.
Sternberg R. J., & The Rainbow Project Collaborators. (2005). Augmenting the SAT through assessments of analytical, practical, and creative skills. In CamaraW., & KimmelE. (Eds.), Choosing students: Higher education admission tools for the 21st century (pp. 159—176). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
80.
Sternberg, R. J., & The Rainbow Project Collaborators. (2006). The Rainbow Project: Enhancing the SAT through assessments of analytical, practical and creative skills. Intelligence, 34(4), 321—350.
81.
SternbergR. J., & SmithC. (1985). Social intelligence and decoding skills in nonverbal communication. Social Cognition, 2, 168—192.
82.
TorranceE. P. (1974). Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Norms-technical manual. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Company.
83.
TurcotteJ., YorkC., IrvingJ., SchollR. M., & PingreeR. J. (2015). News recommendations from social media opinion leaders: Effects on media trust and information seeking. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20(5), 520—535.
84.
WeinsteinE. C., ClarkZ., DiBartolomeoD. J., and DavisK. (2014). A decline in creativity? It depends on the domain. Creativity Research Journal, 26, 174—184.
85.
WestM. A. (2002). Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of creativity and innovation implementation in work groups. Applied Psychology, 51, 355—387.
86.
WestbyE. L., & DawsonV. L. (1995). Creativity: Asset or burden in the classroom?Creativity Research Journal, 8, 1—10.
87.
WilliamsW. M., & CeciS. J. (2015). National hiring experiments reveal 2:1 faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 112(17), 5360—5365.
88.
WoodleyM. A., te NijenhuisJ., & MurphyR. (2013). Were the Victorians cleverer than us? The decline in general intelligence estimated from a meta-analysis of the slowing of simple reaction time. Intelligence, 41, 843—850.
89.
ZajoncR. B. (2001). Mere exposure: A gateway to the subliminal. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10, 224—228.
90.
ZwickR. (2013). Disentangling the role of high school grades, SAT® Scores, and SES in predicting college achievement (ETS RR No. 13-09). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
