Material from Creativity in Context, Chapter 4

Last updated: 4/2/2000
Link back to course Welcome

Creativity in Context, Chapter 4

Creativity in Context by Teresa Amabile is a possible fourth book for this course, but most people will not be reading this. She has some very good analysis there, so I would like to summarize some of Chapter 4.

She and her coworkers have carried out many experiments investigating the effect of rewards on creative performance. She distinguishes between algorithmic and heuristic tasks. A task is algorithmic if there is, beforehand, a complete set of steps for completing the task, and completing the task is only a question of carrying out the steps. If discovering the steps is part of the task, then the task is heuristic. Following a recipe is algorithmic - the recipe tells the steps. Inventing ice cream is heuristic. If there is no list of steps beforehand, but the person performing the task knows what the steps are, then the task is also algorithmic, not heuristic. Only heuristic tasks are considered creative, and even then the task has to be complex.

For algorithmic tasks, Amabile finds that rewards improve performance, but for heuristic (creative) tasks, rewards generally decrease the quality of the performance and the enjoyment of the task. The only exception is if the reward carries information on the quality of performance The reward must make it seem that the person carrying out the task and the person conferring the reward are working together on a task of interest to both. It is possible to train people to ignore rewards so that rewards do not decrease performance on creative tasks.

Amabile then presents a fairly specific componential model of creativity. By "componential", she means a model that breaks both actions and abilities down into parts that each act in a specific order and time. Many times the value of such models is not whether the are right or wrong, but that they give a basis for discussion and disagreement - you are at least all talking about the same thing. So here is a diagram that corresponds more or less to her model of creativity.

The three main abilities or drivers of action in her model are:

Ability	Description	What increases this
Task Motivation	The level of intrinsic interest in this work.	Motivation is increased by a positive social environment, and by earlier success in the task.
Domain-Relevant skills	How much do you know about this area of work, and how well can you do the work?	Skills can be increased through learning, driven by motivation.
Creativity-Relevant processes (similar to skills, but more activist)	General heuristic skills (see below) that carry over from domain to domain	These can be increased by concentration, and through willingness to take risks, both driven by motivation

The following creative process is driven by the actors in the table above.

Step	Description	Driven by
1. Problem or task identification	The stimulus to start a task in this area of work. The stimulus can be internal or external.	Task motivation
2. Preparation	Increasing and/or Reactivating Store of Relevant Information and Response Algorithms. That is, new learning and/or recalling prior learning.	Domain-Relevant Skills
3. Response Generation	Search Memory and Immediate Environment to Generate Response Possibility. That is, play around with things until you generate a possible solution.	Task Motivation and Creativity-Relevant Processes
4. Response Validation and Communication	Test Response Possibility (from 3) Against Factual Knowledge and Other Criteria. That is, see if this is an actual solution to the task.	Domain-Relevant Skills
5. Outcome (the three possibilities are shown to the right). The outcome can increase or decrease motivation.	A. Success - the goal was attained. OR	Process ends
	B. Failure. This was not a solution. No progress. OR	Process ends
	C. Some progress towards goal	Recycle to 1, 2, 3 or 4

Amabile hypothesizes several ways in which extrinsic motivation can decrease creative performance. First, thinking about the reward can simply distract attention from the task - you are thinking about the $5 when it’s the painting, stupid! Second, the rewards may narrowly focus you on the goal, whereas creativity often requires exploration that may seem to move away from the goal, or at least not directly towards it. A third effect may be that thinking about the reward may convince the person that this is what is motivating them, decreasing their sense of intrinsic interest in the task.

The Domain-relevant skills are regular learning, training or education. But what about the Creativity-relevant processes? You may remember reading about these heuristic skills in Gardner and Csikszentmihalyi. Basically, these are things that you do, when you don’t know what to do; that is, when the task is heuristic rather than algorithmic. Many authors have lists; Amabile has collected several lists, and so has a long list. Many creativity researchers feel that heuristic skills are more informal or internal, and vary from person to person. At any rate, here is Amabile’s list:

Breaking perceptual set. This means being able to change the way that you perceive the task. An example would be "thinking outside of the box".
Breaking cognitive set. This means recognizing that your methods are not working, and deciding to try something else.
Understanding complexities. At least some times, things are not simple, and you have to be able to think in complex ways.
Suspending judgment. Not making up your mind too early, closing off other possibilities.
Using "wide" categories. This means seeing relationships between things that others might think of as different.
Remembering accurately. The ability to remember many details can help when complex thinking is required.
Breaking out of performance "scripts." "this is the way we do that" may become a hindrance.
Perceiving creatively. This is used to refer to seeing or perceiving things differently than other people do, and to recognizing when new information makes a critical difference, for example by invalidating a previous hypothesis. I think it is Gardner that writes that many creative people seize upon a new small detail as requiring massive changes, while others see it as a trivial addition to the store of knowledge.
When all else fails, try something counterintuitive. That is, just try something that doesn’t seem (at first) to make sense. Another variation on this is to try, "what if everything we believe about this is completely wrong."
Make the familiar strange.
Generate hypotheses by analyzing case studies, use analogies, account for exceptions, and investigate paradoxical incidents.
Play with ideas - try mental gymnastics.
Adopt a work style that can alternate periods of play with long periods of intense effort.
Use "productive forgetting" - if something doesn’t work, forget about it.
Persist in the face of difficulty and frustration. Don’t abandon the task just because you have failed.
A high energy level helps.
Self-discipline helps - push yourself to work on the task.
Be able to delay your gratification.
Use your own independent judgement.
A tolerance for ambiguity helps - this is, for example, suspending judgement (#4 above)
Be autonomous, independent
Don’t engage in sex-role stereotyping
Direct your activities yourself, don’t let others do it.
Be willing to take risks
Strive for excellence.