Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The production of variability in behavior has been linked to creativity (Campbell, 1960), so it seemed possible that manipulating stimulus variability would influence judgments of creativity. The present set of experiments examined people's judgments of the creativity of colored arrays of circles and squares and whether these judgments are a function of the variability of the arrays. Experiment 1 determined that people's judgment of the variability of 4 × 4 arrays of colored circles was a direct function of a new algorithm for generating array variability, and Experiment 2 revealed a strong relationship between this judged variability and the judged creativity of those same arrays. Experiment 3 extended this finding to a new type of array, and Experiment 4 replicated this finding using the explicit judgment of creativity on a Likert scale rather than the pairwise choice procedure of Experiments 1 through 3. The results are placed within the context of a preferred level of variability, the role of novelty, and the systematic study of the creative product.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alberti

E. T.

, & Witryol

S. L.

(2001). Children's preference for complexity as a function of perceived units in collative motivation Journal of Genetic Psychology, 151, 91–101.

Avital

, & Cupchik

G. C.

(1998). Perceiving hierarchical structures in nonrepresentational paintings. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 16, 59–70.

Bates

T. C.

, & D'Oliveiro

(2003). PsyScript: a Macintosh application for scripting experiments. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 35, 565–576.

Baumol

W. J.

, & Ide

E. A.

(1956). Variety in retailing. Management Science, 3, 93–101.

Berlyne

D. E.

(1960). Conflict, arousal, and curiosity. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Besemer

S. P.

, & Treffinger

D. J.

(1981). Analysis of creative products: Review and synthesis. Journal of Creative Behavior, 15, 158–178.

Böckenholt

(2004). Comparative judgments as an alternative to ratings: Identifying the scale origin. Psychological Methods, 9, 453–465.

Campbell

D. T.

(1960). Blind variation and selective retention in creative thought as in other knowledge processes. Psychological Review, 67, 380–400.

Cox

, & Cox

A. D.

(2002). Beyond first impressions: The effects of repeated exposure on consumer liking of visually complex and simple product designs. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30, 119–130.

10.

Cupchik

G. C.

, & Berlyne

D. E.

(1979). The perception of collative properties in visual stimuli. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 20, 93–104.

11.

Eisenman

(1968). Novelty ratings of simple and complex shapes. Journal of General Psychology, 78, 275–278.

12.

Goodwin

Davidson

H. P. B.

, & Harris

(2005). Sensory varieties in concentrate diets for stabled horses: Effects on behaviour and selection. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 90, 337–349.

13.

Hoch

S. J.

Bradlow

E. T.

, & Wansink

(1999). The variety of an assortment. Marketing Science, 18, 527–546.

14.

Jacobsen

(2004). Individual and group modelling of aesthetic judgment strategies. British Journal of Psychology, 95, 41–56.

15.

Kahn

B. E.

, & Wansink

(2004). The influence of assortment structure on perceived variety and consumption quantities. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 519–533.

16.

Locher

P. L.

(1995). A measure of the information content of visual art stimuli for studies in experimental aesthetics. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 13, 183–191.

17.

Martindale

(1990). The clockwork muse: The predictability of artistic change. New York: Basic Books.

18.

Munsinger

, & Kessen

(1964). Uncertainty, structure, and preference. Psychological Monographs, 78, (9, Whole No. 586).

19.

Munsinger

, & Kessen

(1966a). Preference and recall of stimulus variability. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72, 311–312.

20.

Munsinger

, & Kessen

(1966b). Stimulus variability and cognitive change. Psychological Review, 73, 164–178.

21.

Neuringer

(2003). Creativity and reinforced variability. In Lattal

K. A.

& Chase

P. N.

(Eds.), Behavior theory and philosophy (pp. 323–338). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

22.

Neuringer

(2004). Reinforced variability in animals and people: Implications for adaptive action. American Psychologist, 59, 891–906.

23.

Scott

L. L.

, & Provenza

F. D.

(1998). Variety of foods and flavors affects selection of foraging location by sheep. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 61, 113–122.

24.

Simonton

D. K.

(2000). Creativity: Cognitive, personal, developmental, and social aspects. American Psychologist, 55, 151–158.

25.

Thurstone

L. L.

(1927). A law of comparative judgment. Psychological Review, 34, 273–286.

26.

Ueno

(2001). How do we eat? Hypothesis of foraging strategy from the viewpoint of gustation in primates. In Matsuzawa

(Ed.), Primate origins of human cognition and behavior (pp. 104–111). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag Publishing.

27.

Young

M. E.

, & Wasserman

E. A.

(2002a). Detecting variety: What's so special about sameness? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131, 131–143.

28.

Young

M. E.

, & Wasserman

E. A.

(2002b). The pigeon's discrimination of visual entropy: A logarithmic function. Animal Learning & Behavior, 30, 306–314.

Judgments of Creativity as a Function of Visual Stimulus Variability

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References