PSYCH 129 Chapter 5,6, and 8

extrinsic vs intrinsic motivation (what are they? differences? examples?)

extrinsic motivation - motivation based on external rewards (money, grades, praise, etc) intrinsic motivation - motivation based on factors internal to the person, particularly enjoyment of the activity itself

Jung (2000-2001) (what did they find concerning effectiveness of "nominal" group vs transactional leaders and transformational leaders?)

"nominal" group had best performance (highest fluency and flexibility) - For groups, groups with transformational leaders performed significantly better than groups with transactional leaders

self-serving bias (what is it? effect on creative people's attributions?)

- tendency to attribute desirable outcomes to stable, global causes within oneself, and attribute undesirable outcomes to unstable, specific causes in one's situation (research suggests that this tendency is characteristic of normal people) Since creative product is evaluated positive (desirable outcome) creators with self-serving bias will attribute their creative behaviors to more dispositional causes

continuous reinforcement (what is it? speed of learning? speed of behavior extinction?)

-Behaviors reinforced every time they occur -Learning occurs rapidly, but so does extinction

collectivist culture (what is it? views and expectations of people? values? more/less diversity? which countries tend to be individualist?)

-Emphasizes importance of GROUPS (family, community, society, nation) -Goals of group given priority over goals of individual -Value placed on social harmony and selflessness -Tend to have less diverse populations -Tends to be associated with Asia and the East

intermittent reinforcement (what is it? speed of learning? resistance to extinction?)

-Only reinforce SOME responses -Initial learning slower -More resistant to extinction

individualist culture (what is it? views and expectations of people? values? more/less diversity? which countries tend to be individualist?)

-People viewed as independent and self-reliant -People expected to take care of themselves -Value placed on personal goals and achievements -Tend to have more diverse populations -Tends to be associated with the US and the West

Hunter, Bedell & Mumford (2007) (3 factors correlated with creative achievement in organization? to what does each refer? what are moderators? did they find any moderators?)

3 factors seemed to be especially correlated with creative achievement in an organization: • Challenge • Intellectual stimulation • Positive collegial exchange - Suggests that a work environment that presents people with meaningful, engaging, challenging work that stimulates thinking and an exchange of thoughts is critical to encourage creativity and innovation moderators - factors that affect the degree of influence of a particular organizational climate element Important moderators found to be: - When people are given some discretion about how they go about their work When people are dissatisfied with "business as usual"

Lee & Seo (2006) (findings regarding differences in teaching experience? regarding Urban's 3 components of creativity? regarding balanced/intermediate/biased view?)

38.1% (16/42) had biased view (almost always cognitive) • 57.1% (24/42) had intermediate view (almost always cognitive/environmental) • 4.8% (2/42) had balanced view• More experienced teachers tended to be more BIASED than younger teachers-Young teachers (fewer than 16 years experience): 4/22 (18%) had biased view-Experienced teachers (16+ years experience): 12/20 (60%) had biased view-Researchers suggest that some aspects of the personal component (e.g. non-conformity, impulsivity) are things not generally approved of in classroom, so more experienced teachers may more disapprove of the personal component of creativity (leading to more biased view) Successfully facilitating creativity in education requires teachers having a balancedview of creativity (awareness of all 3 components)-Most teachers understand cognitive aspects (originality, divergent thinking, etc)-Personal (motivation, openness, tolerance, nonconformity, etc) and Environmental (usefulness, social value, etc) components should be emphasized to help improve teachers' understanding of these components. -Unless teachers recognize/appreciate all components, students will likely not reach their creative potential

Wallach & Kogan (1965) (what do they suggest regarding classroom environment?)

A permissive, relaxed, fun, game-like atmosphere seems more conducive to creative performance than rigid, test-like atmosphere

augmenting principle (what is it? how does it affect consensus? attributions? precocious behaviors?)

Any factor that would seem to decrease the probability of a creative behavior lowers the consensus value of that behavior and leads to a more internal attribution If creative behavior performed under handicap, it will be attributed more internally than it would otherwise (ex: music composed by deaf composer; art created by mentally-ill, physically handicapped, or untrained painter) • precocious behaviors are lower in consensus, so attributed more internally

Torrance's "creativity characteristics encouraged by teachers" index (what does it describe? relationship to overall creativity?)

Based on teachers' responses to the Ideal Child checklist • Teachers rate the extent to which they encouraged Or discouraged each of 60 characteristics that had been found to be related to creativity Based on teachers' responses to the Ideal Child checklist Almost perfect correlation between indexes - In a general way, at least, these indexes also correlate with the overall creative ability of children in these cultures as well.

"stop rules" (what are they? examples? difference between cultures where creativity is more/less common? in cultures that simply "tolerate" individuality and originality rather than reward or punish it?)

Behaviors that are valued in a culture will be rewarded, while those that are considered inappropriate will be punished • Standards that we learn from our culture that involved what NOT to do: - "don't lie" - "don't cheat" - "don't steal" - "don't drink and drive" • In some cultures, individuality and originality are accepted, allowed, and rewarded - here, creativity is more common • In others, individuality and originality are "stopped" - here, creativity is less common • Some cultures may not actively reward or punish individuality and originality, but may tolerate that kind of behavior - here, the degree of originality that gets expressed is essentially determined by individual's particular personality - here, creativity may occur if the individual is so inclined

Hennessey et al (1989) (What did they find regarding "immunizing" students against the overjustification effect? what did they do? did it work?)

Children who went through this kind of training later showed no overjustification effect (no reduction in intrinsic enjoyment of a task they enjoyed) after being given a reward for performing the task (while controls did show an overjustification effect).

Zha et al (2006) (who did they compare? differences in creativity between Chinese/American students? regarding individualism/collectivism? somewhat surprising result regarding individualism/collectivism? researchers' explanation?)

Compared Chinese / American grad students on creativity, collectivism/individualism, and GRE scores American grad students scored significantly higher on fluency, originality, elaboration, and titles (no significant difference on flexibility) - Chinese grad students had significantly higher GRE quantitative scores - American grad student found to be more individualistic on all measures of (I-CT): self concept, attitudes, and values (Chinese grad students more collectivist on all measures) - Surprising result: within each culture, creative potential unrelated to whether a person was more individualistic or collectivistic - Researchers suggest that this may have been because of restricted sample of people - ALL subjects highly-educated doctoral students (range of creative potential relatively small)

Runco, Dow & Smith (2006) (what did they find regarding the relationship between factual knowledge and creativity? in general? in same domain?)

Don't give too much information • Creativity requires independent, unique thought - if given too much information, they may not have the opportunity to think for themselves Divergent thinking may benefit from factual knowledge, but only when the factual knowledge is in same domain as divergent thinking task • Findings also point out that some divergent thinking tasks can be significantly influenced by an individual's knowledge - this can lead to biased results, since results are not just dependent on "creativity" (which is what these tests are usually intended to measure!)

creative work by multiple people (how does it affect consensus? attributions? zeitgeist?)

Higher consensus value for idea when made by multiple scientists rather than only one - these ideas attributed less internally and more externally If two or more people work together on same product, this also raises the consensus value - attributions are less dispositional for these creative products than if they had been created by a single creator zeitgeist: the defining spirit or mood of a particular period of history as shown by the ideas and beliefs of the time.

Thomas & Berk (1981) (findings regarding creativity and classroom adjustment? how was this different from Torrance, 1972? possible reasons for difference?)

Found (contrary to previous research) an association between high figural creativity scores and somewhat higher adjustment ratings by teachers• Teachers tended to view more creative children as well-adjusted, diligent, responsible, and persistent Why the difference from previous findings? - Perhaps it's the difference between FIGURAL (measured here) and VERBAL creativity (measured in earlier studies) - Creativity in these different domains (figural vs. verbal) may be related to different personality and behavioral styles in children (and perhaps different teacher attitudes and perceptions) - Perhaps nonverbal expressions of creativity in classroom are more acceptable to teachers than verbal creativity, and that the corresponding personality attributes related to figural creativity may be more congruent with teacher expectations.

fourth-grade slump (what is it? cultural differences in timing? culture with earliest slump?)

Found that almost all children in these cultures experienced a slump in creative thinking ability, but at different times US mainstream culture showed earliest slump (slumped in both verbal/figural creativity between 3rd and 4th grades, then recover between 4th and 5th grade) Most cultures showed some kind of slump at some grade level, and Torrance suggests that cultural factors strongly influence the course of creative development, the level of creative functioning, and the type of creative functioning that flourishes most.

Rosenthal & Jacobsen (1966) (what did they do? what did they find? differences among grades? possible reasons for Rosenthal effect? possible reasons for any grade differences?)

Gave students Tests of General Ability (TOGA) - a nonverbal intelligence test -Told teachers this was designed to predict academic "blooming" (intellectual gain)-Researchers RANDOMLY picked 20% of students and told their teachers that their scores predict "unusual intellectual gains" during that academic year. • End of year (8 months later) - gave students same general IQ test Children for whom teachers had been led to expect great intellectual gain showed significantly higher IQ gains than control children • Effect strongest for YOUNGER children(grades 1 & 2) Perhaps teachers gave supposed "academic bloomers" more personal interaction, more extensive feedback, more approval, more kind gestures to "bloomers" and perhaps paid less attention "low-expectancy" students (e.g. seated them farther away, offered fewer learning materials, etc) -Possible explanations as to why the greater effect in younger children:•Younger children have less established academic "reputations" -reputation as an academic "bloomer" may be more credible Perhaps younger children more susceptible to social influence exerted by expectations of teacher

optimal teams (features of optimal teams according to research?)

Groups should not be very large • Original ideas tend to be unconventional and even a bit strange • Sharing ideas like these harder with larger groups • Research: larger groups tend to inhibit creative thinking more than smaller groups • Groups should have both experts and novices • Experts bring benefit of large knowledge base, but tend to be inflexible • This inflexibility may be because they have invested so much time and effort to becoming an expert, that alternative views could devalue their expertise and past investment - they are likely to resist these alternative perspectives • Novices are most likely to be open-minded and flexible since they have "nothing to lose" regarding past investments of time/effort - should include 2 or 3 in team • Groups should be heterogeneous (members having differing qualities) • Research (Katz, 1982) suggests that teams that have worked together for a long time tend to become more homogeneous. • Homogeneity may give group members a strong sense of identity, but can also cause separation from other entities inside/outside the organization, reducing group's willingness to consider new or conflicting ideas • So, don't keep teams together for too long!

Wiley, Crittenden & Birg (1979) (who were their subjects? what did they show?)

Had 230 scientists explain why manuscripts they had submitted to journals had been accepted, rejected, or given "revise and resubmit" decisions • "Acceptances" attributed more internally (author's ability, training, effort) and less externally (choice of reviewers, availability of journal space, editorial judgment, chance) than "revise and resubmit" decisions • "Revise and resubmit" decisions attributed more internally than "rejections" • Results did not vary according to scientists academic rank, number of publications they had, or highest degree received

Florida (2011) (findings concerning college education and creative class? his suggestions for this relationship?)

He also points out that creative talent is not dependent on education - a high percentage (40%) of Americans in the creative class don't have college degrees Florida suggests this is either because creativity is not strongly associated with traditional intelligence, or the education offered by colleges does not lead directly to creative talent

Torrance's "diversity of occupational aspirations" index (what is it? influenced by? relationship to overall creativity?)

His previous research indicated that the occupational choices/aspirations of children are strongly influenced by a sensitivity to what is permitted or taboo in their culture • The index reflects the children choosing occupations outside the top 25 of most popular occupations, plus those choosing occupations in visual art, music, dance, and drama Based on teachers' responses to the Ideal Child checklist • Teachers rate the extent to which they encouraged Or discouraged each of 60 characteristics that had been found to be related to creativity

Runco, Illies & Reiter-Palmon (2005) (what did they investigate? what are "conceptual" instructions? "procedural" instructions? what did they find regarding the "explicitness" of instructions? regarding conceptual vs procedural instructions?)

Investigated effect of explicitness of instructions and whether instructions are conceptual (criteria-focused) or procedural (focused on tactics/strategies) Conceptual Low explicitness: "List uses for a shoe." High explicitness: "List uses for a shoe. Write down only original ideas. An original idea is unusual, novel, rare, or unique." Procedural Low explicitness: "List uses for a shoe. You should let your mind wander and 'free associate.' Think of ideas being chained together, one after another. The first ideas in that chain may not be as good as later ideas. You need to follow the chain a long way to find your best ideas. The best ideas will be found AFTER common ideas. Now list uses for a shoe, and remember to let your mind wander." High explicitness: "List uses for a shoe. Most important is that you do NOT give ideas that other individuals will think of. In other words, do not give popular or common ideas. Also, do NOT use cues or hints you may see right now around the classroom. Those may be seen by other students, and they may therefore lead to popular ideas. Do not write down the first things that come to mind. Now, list original uses for a shoe." Some differences in divergent thinking based on how explicit instructions were - more explicit instructions led to better performance • However, there was a large and robust difference between the conceptual and procedural style of instructions - procedural (strategy based) instructions led to significant increases in fluency, flexibility, and originality compared to conceptual (criteria-based) instructions

remote models (what are they? how are they helpful?)

It is also useful for teachers to expose students to REMOTE (not actually present) models of creative behavior as well (famous people, eminent creators) Exposes students to creative behaviors • Allows students to gain more appreciation for creative work • Helps students see eminent creators as real people, teaching them that anyone can be creative

maintenance of behavior (most effective method?)

Most effective way to achieve maintenance of behavior is starting with continuous reinforcement (for strong, fast learning of associations), but to gradually switch to intermittent reinforcement so that students will perform behavior for longer periods even without reinforcement

Carl Rogers' theory of creativity (two conditions conducive to creativity? Findings of Harrington, Block & Block, 1987?)

Psychological safety: created when an individual's social world accepts the individual as having unconditional worth, where external evaluation is absent, and has empathy for the individual Psychological freedom: created by granting individual permission to engage in unrestrained expression Tested Rogers' theory •Collected child-rearing info from 100 parents and created an index of how closely the parents' child-rearing practices matched Rogers' theory •Researchers found significant correlation between having a Rogers-like child-rearing style (psychological safety/freedom) and measurements of child's creativity

overjustification effect (what is it? what is the effect on motivation?)

Occurs when an extrinsic motivator leads to the reduction of the person's intrinsic motivation •Research suggests that intrinsic motivation is sometimes lost once a person is offered extrinsic rewards for that behavior

Epstein, Kirshnit, Lanza & Rubin (1984) (what did they show? previous behaviors for which pigeons were reinforced? how do they explain insightful "problem solving?")

Previous experience played a major role in the emergence of their problem solving behavior! Pigeons' performance depended on particular behaviors previously learned This type of problem solving can be explained without cognitive processes - it simply involves the spontaneous integration of previously-learned responses - Suggests that teachers can reinforce small, manageable, discrete objectives, rather than giving large lessons and projects - these behaviors can then be spontaneously integrated later in useful, creative ways.

problem finding skills in classroom (possible to teach? how?)

Problem finding is another important creative skill that teachers can help children with Educators are often tempted to just present well-defined problems to students - those with well-defined goals and solution paths. However, problem finding is also an important creative skill that should also be included in the curriculum Students should be given the chance to seek out and develop questions for themselves. It is helpful for teachers to present students with ill-defined problems and allow them to go through the problem-finding process of discovering and defining problems in specific terms

Kasof's theory (1995) (what does he propose?)

Proposes that creativity is not inherent in an idea or product, but is instead attributed by others

Kohler's "Insight" studies in champanzees (what did he find? box-and-banana problem?)

Showed that chimpanzees could solve a variety of mechanical problems in a very human-like way. • Like humans, they would fail most of the time, but occasionally they would demonstrate insight • An animal would look thoughtful for awhile, then suddenly solve the problem rapidly and completely - doing everything but shouting "Eureka!" • 6 chimps placed in large room, banana suspended out of reach • Wooden box was available on the floor • After a number of fruitless (ugh, sorry!) attempts to get the banana by jumping, most chimps lost interest • However, one chimp (named Sultan) looked thoughtful, looking back and forth at box and banana for while, then suddenly moving box near banana and jumped up on box to tear down the banana

Belcher (1975) (what did he investigate? findings regarding teachers' modeling of creative divergent thinking in class?)

Students often imitate teachers •Demonstrate divergent thinking, solve problems in original ways in class, etc •Belcher (1975)-4th/5th graders watched videos of teacher performing "uses" task for "tin can"-One group saw teacher come up with 30 ORIGINAL uses-Second group saw teacher come up with 30 NON-ORIGINAL uses-RESULTS: Students who saw ORIGINAL ideas had significantly higher originality and fluency scores than group who saw non-original ideas

Kasof's idea of "impression management" for creators (what does he suggest? why? examples of people who suffered from poor impression management? particular suggestions for impression management?)

Suggests that many creators have suffered from inadequate impression management, causing observers to judge their work less favorably or attribute their work less dispositionally than they would have otherwise Example: Vincent Van Gogh - Notoriously presented himself poorly - Had bipolar and borderline personality disorders, among others - Had notorious conflicts, highly variable moods, recklessness, etc - This alienated his contemporaries and led to negative evaluations, delaying acceptance of his work till long after his death • Example: Albert Einstein - Poor self-presentation may have been partly responsible for delay in recognizing his early important papers - Published early papers as an unknown, with no Ph.D. or university affiliation - Even after getting faculty position, his poor self-presentation may have further delayed recognition of his work Learn to dress well, study basic etiquette, get training in social skills - to help win approval for work and improve perceived creative eminence • Reduce the consensus and distinctiveness value of their work and try to increase the consistency value of their work - Scientists should avoid blindly follow in mentor's footsteps - Avoid using experimental paradigms that have been around for a long time - Don't focus on only one or two problems during career • Don't be so quick to collaborate - If creator wants his/her work to receive highest degree of dispositional attributions, avoid collaboration when pursuing most creative ideas - Although one SHOULD weight the creative benefits of collaboration as well - the increase in productivity or quality of creative product - Collaborating with those of LOWER status is safer because others tend to misattribute creative products "upward" to the higher-status collaborator. Collaborating with equals or superiors is riskier

generalization of behavior (most effective way to promote generalization of behavior?)

Take varied approach to practice -Creative behaviors most likely to generalize to novel real-world situations if they are being reinforced in lots of different situations -Teachers should practice and reinforce different types of divergent thinking tasks to make it more likely that students will recognize other situations where they can use these creative skills in other situations and environments

the ideal student (Torrance, 1972 findings? compared to characteristics of creative people?)

Teachers prefer students who are punctual, courteous,and who follow assignments •The characteristics of creative people seem to be exactly the opposite of what teachers consider to be ideal: nonconformity, unconventionality, and autonomy

Florida (2002) (three "T"s? movable resources? benefit of university/tolerance?)

Technology, Talent, and Tolerance - Florida sees "talent" and "technology" as movable resources - people and companies can/do move around to different locations He points to research suggesting that the importance of tolerance involves benefit of different but complementary skill sets of people from other countries: different problem solving styles, forms of creativity, abilities in various areas (cooking, art, design, etc)

cultural inhibition and cultural blocks (what are they? examples in western culture? Adams' pipe and ping-pong ball "taboo" example? effect of particular situation and group of people on cultural inhibition?)

The effects of a particular culture on creativity likely depends on the specific context or situation as well Adams (1974): "Conceptual Blockbusting" • Cultural blocks can affect creativity • In western culture, for example - "Taboos" - "Fantasy and reflection are a waste of time" - "Playfulness is for children only" - "problem-solving is a serious business and humor is out of place" - "reason, logic, numbers, utility, practicality are GOOD, feeling, intuition, qualitative judgments, pleasure are BAD" - "Tradition is preferable to change" - "Any problem can be solved by scientific thinking and lots of money However, you might NOT think of something like (gross!) urinating in the pipe! • Adams believes that the reason you wouldn't come up with this type of solution is due to a cultural block: "urinating in public" is fairly taboo in our culture. • Adams reports that people's solution depends not only on cultural inhibition, but also on the particular group of people and the particular setting - Mixed group (males/females) who are not familiar with each other, or in a nice/elegant environment? People rarely think of urinating in pipe - Group who work together (especially all male-group) often come up with urinating in the pipe, and laugh heartily when they do • It's not that this solution is necessarily the best solution, it's the idea that cultural taboos can remove entire FAMILIES of solutions from the thoughts of the problem solve

criticisms of Kasof's theory

The so-called "judges" of creativity are inconsistent • Even "experts" are often biased, disagree with each other, and are sometimes just WRONG • Many researchers prefer a much more OBJECTIVE idea and measurement of creativity aside from subjective "judgment" Kasoff suggests that, since creativity is so important for livelihoods of creators, vitality of society, human progress - creators should try to improve the reception of their original work and dispositionalize people's attributions of their work • In other words, creators should try to get people to view their work as being due to their "creative qualities" rather than situational factors (i.e. "impression management for creators")

transformational vs transactional leaders (what is each?)

Transformational leaders • Intellectual stimulation: questioning of assumptions, reframing of problems, thinking about ideas using novel approaches • Individualized consideration: appreciating and integrating different needs and viewpoints of members within a group • Inspirational motivation: inspiring group members to elevate their goals/needs - Transactional leaders • Give rewards in exchange for high performance • Involves extrinsic motivation and positive reinforcement

squelchers (what are they? should teachers use them?)

Through words/actions, demonstrate that creativity is a worthy/valuable thing •Avoid criticism of students' attempts at creativity (avoid squelchers- statements that inhibit creative thinking) -"You can't be serious!" -"That's a waste of time!" -"That will never work!", etc

brainstorming (what is it? basic guidelines? effectiveness? reasons? virtual teams? Why might they help? Sosik et al, 1998?)

brainstorming- groups of people get together to come up with ideas Basic Guidelines to Brainstorming Postpone judgment (though you will eventually judge ideas later) • Focus on quantity of ideas, not quality (produce as many ideas as possible) • Try to find ideas by piggybacking or hitchhiking (building off of other people's ideas) Research suggests that group problem solving is not as effective in coming up with creative ideas as individuals working alone • Social loafing - individuals don't exert as much effort when sharing responsibility • When brainstorming in groups, even though there is supposed to be a postponement of judgment, judgment is often apparent in reactions and expressions, thus inhibiting ideas due to social pressure • Social pressure can cause groups members to avoid contributing ideas that might be dismissed/ignored, and this also results in FUTURE lost ideas as well due to losing piggybacking potential Some research suggests that virtual teams (teams that provide some anonymity) may be more effective at coming up with original, creative ideas than face-to-face brainstorming groups Had small groups brainstorm for 20 minutes • Group members were introduced and group leader explained task • Group members used computer system to exchange ideas: one group's system attached their name to the ideas they submitted, the other group's system did not (their ideas were presented anonymously) • RESULTS: the responses of the anonymous group were more original and flexible than the non-anonymous group

dispositional vs. situation attributions (what is each? which kind of attributions to people tend to make about creative ideas and products?)

dispositional attribution - behavior caused by factors internal to the person situational attribution - behavior caused by external factors People tend to attribute creative ideas and products to dispositional causes (i.e. their internal "creativity" or "genius") and rarely attribute it to situational (external) causes.

Aviram & Milgram (1977) (what is dogmatism? what is "locus of control"? results regarding Israeli/American/Soviet children? researchers' explanation for results?)

dogmatism - closed-minded thinking style and belief-system that is intolerant of opposing beliefs locus of control - extent to which an individual feels he/she can control events affecting them (usually described as being internal or external) American/Israeli children more open-minded, had more internal locus of control, and were more creative in their thinking than children from USSR - Researchers suggest differences caused by cultural differences between western-oriented societies (US/Israel) and USSR and how they affect personality and cognitive development - the dogmatism inherent in the USSR leads to more conformity and less originality (i.e. less creativity)

consensus (to what does it refer? how does it relate to internal/external attributions? relationship to creative behavior?)

generalization across people; the extent to which other people behave similarly in same situation Creative behavior is highly original (LOW in consensus value) - it is unusual for others to behave that way • This leads to more INTERNAL (dispositional) attributions - the more original a product, the lower its consensus value, the more internal the attribution will be

distinctiveness (to what does it refer? how does it relate to internal/external attributions? relationship to creative behavior?)

generalization across situations; the extent to which a person behaviors similarly in different situations • Proposed that lower values for consensus and distinctiveness lead to more INTERNAL attributions • Proposed that higher values for consensus and distinctiveness lead to more EXTERNAL (situational) attributions

consistency (to what does it refer? how does it relate to internal/external attributions? relationship to creative behavior?)

generalization across time, the extent to which a person behaves similarly in similar situations over time The more frequently a person performs creatively over time (consistency), the more dispositionally that person's products should be attributed • People who are consistently creative over time are considered to have more "creative qualities" than a person who is more of a "flash-in-the-pan"

Rosenthal (Pygmalion) effect (what is it?)

higher expectations lead to increase in performance

Lepper, Greene & Nisbett (1973) (what did they investigate? what did they find? possible reasons?)

is intrinsic motivation in an activity reduced by offering extrinsic motivation for it? -Gave children chance to draw with felt-tipped pens and recorded how long they played with them (intrinsic motivation- they enjoyed it!) -Group 1 told, if they would draw for a man who liked to look at pictures, they would get a prize - a "Good Player Award" •Group 1 got award after drawing for 6 minutes, Group 2 did not expect award and did not get one, Group 3 did not expect award, but got one anyway -Results: A week later, Group 1 spent less time drawing with pens than they had before, while other groups showed as much interest as before -Possible conclusions: • Behavioral contrast? - reward raised, but then LOWERED •Activity now viewed as work - won't "work" when reward is lowered •Maybe now drawing IS work - kids forced to draw more than they wanted to-However: •Extrinsic rewards don't always weaken intrinsic ones - depends on initial motivation, context in which awards are achieved (rewarded for doing well? -you'll feel competent)

organizational climate (what is it?)

recurring patterns of behavior, attitudes, and feelings that characterize an organization

salience (what is it? how does it affect attributions?)

salience - degree to which something is apparent, prominent, or obvious Research consistently suggests that humans attribute greater causality to salient stimuli than to non-salient stimuli

creative class (what is it?)

segment of population involved in creative work (artists, musicians, designers, engineers, scientists, and others who produce knowledge and ideas)

actor-observer effect (what is it?)

tendency for the actor (the person performing a behavior) to attribute the behavior to the situation and for the observer (the person watching the actor behave) to attribute the same behavior to the actor's disposition

fundamental attribution error (what is it?)

tendency to overestimate internal factors (e.g. traits or attitudes), and to underestimate situational factors in explaining behavior

creativity and salience (relationship? for observers of the creative behavior? for the creative person her/himself? how are creative people special cases of "actors" and how might this affect the attributions they make about their creative behavior?)

• Creative behavior is unusually novel (hence more salient), capturing attention to unusual degree and increasing the fundamental attribution error • In addition, successful creators tend to behave in unconventional and nonconforming ways, making them even MORE salient and further increasing the fundamental attribution error • Regarding how creators explain their own creative behavior, we might expect them to attribute their behavior more to situational factors than internal factors (in terms of the actor-observer effect, since they are actors) • Creators often do this - crediting outside forces like mentors, colleagues, spouses, reviewers, predecessors, etc However, creative behavior is special regarding actor's attributions: - Environments most conducive to creative performance are tranquil and NON-SALIENT, so creator is less likely to credit his/her environment for his/her behavior - Successful creators also typically experience a high-level of self-focused attention due to enthusiastic audience for product, fame, compliments, hearing others talk about them, honors, autograph requests, etc - All of this causes successful creators to be reminded of themselves and focus attention more on themselves, increasing dispositional attributions

Jellen & Urban (1989) (how did they test creativity of children? results from children of different countries? overall findings? conclusion?)

• Investigated creativity of 569 elementary school aged children across 11 countries using the Test for Creative Thinking - Drawing Production (TCT-DP) • Subjects classified as high, average, or low in creative potential (score determined by fluency, originality, elaboration, etc) Except for children from Philippines, children from Western countries (US, England, Germany) significantly outperformed children from the East (China, India, Indonesia) - Highest scores came from cultures linked to values like individualism, freedom of choice, freedom of expression, self-reliance, and independence. - Lowest scores came from cultures linked to values like collectivism, civil obedience, self-discipline, self-restraint, and dependence. • CONCLUSION: Western cultures may be more stimulating of creative potential

collaboration and competition (evidence for effects on creativity? Raina, 1968? overall research findings on social effects of collaboration/competition?)

• Many examples of collaborations leading to significant achievements (Wright Brothers, Stravinsky & Balanchine) • Many examples of competition leading to greater achievement as well Raina (1968) • 9th graders performed various creative thinking tasks • One group offered monetary rewards for top 3 scorers, and told that top 3 scorers would be praised by having their name written prominently on the school bulletin board (in order to induce competition) • RESULT: "competition" group had significantly higher scores of flexibility and fluency than control group There is an important person-environment interaction - the effects of competition/collaboration will be different for different people • What's important is a particular person's perception of the situation/environment

Kelley's covariation model of attribution (what does it propose? three variables?)

• People's attributions (internal vs external) determined by 3 variables: consensus, consistency, distinctiveness