众多研究证明,创造性无论是对于个人发展还是科技发明乃至社会进步都有着至关重要的作用,而创造性评价作为衡量创造性产物创新水平高低过程中的关键环节,对于后续创造性的激发具有重要的意义。当前,尽管创造性评价的方法日趋客观,但由于影响因素纷繁复杂,学界依旧缺乏规范统一的评价标准。本文主要探讨影响创造性评价的多种因素,包括评分者、创作者和文化背景等。明确创造性评价的影响因素,对于今后合理控制来自测评方面的误差,规范创造性评价的系统性的标准具有重要意义。
Numerous studies have proved that creativity plays a vital role in personal development, scientific and technological inventions and social progress. Creativity evaluation, as a key link in the process of measuring the level of innovation of creative products, is of great significance to the subsequent stimulation of creativity. At present, although the methods of creativity evaluation are becoming more and more objective, the academic circle still lacks standardized and unified evaluation standards due to the complex influencing factors. This article mainly discusses a variety of factors that affect creativity evaluation, including raters, creators, and cultural backgrounds. Clarifying the influencing factors of creativity evaluation is of great significance for the reasonable control of errors from the evaluation and standardization of the systemic standards of creativity evaluation in the future.
Numerous studies have proved that creativity plays a vital role in personal development, scientific and technological inventions and social progress. Creativity evaluation, as a key link in the process of measuring the level of innovation of creative products, is of great significance to the subsequent stimulation of creativity. At present, although the methods of creativity evaluation are becoming more and more objective, the academic circle still lacks standardized and unified evaluation standards due to the complex influencing factors. This article mainly discusses a variety of factors that affect creativity evaluation, including raters, creators, and cultural backgrounds. Clarifying the influencing factors of creativity evaluation is of great significance for the reasonable control of errors from the evaluation and standardization of the systemic standards of creativity evaluation in the future.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY 4.0).
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
1. 引言
创造性是很多心理学家研究的主题,关于该方面的研究也是数不胜数。对于创造性的定义,不同的学者从不同的角度对它进行了解释。著名的古希腊哲学家亚里士多德最早对创造性进行了定义:产生前所未有的事物。而研究创造性的先驱心理学家吉尔福特(Guilford)则认为在产生创造性产品的过程中,创造性思维是创造性的具体表现,它的核心是发散思维,即“从给定的信息中产生信息,从同一来源中产生各种各样、许许多多的输出” [1]。随着时代的发展及心理学家的不断探索,现在被广泛认可的创造性的概念是:创造性是一种产生既新颖(novel)又适用(useful)的产品的能力 [2]。由此也发展出了许多测量创造性的工具,比如多用途测验(Alternate Use Task, AUT)、托兰斯创造性思维测验(Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking, TTCT)、远距离联想测验(Remote Association Test, RAT)和创造性人格测验等。
张俊俊. 创造性评价的影响因素综述A Review of the Influencing Factors of Creativity Evaluation[J]. 社会科学前沿, 2021, 10(02): 390-397. https://doi.org/10.12677/ASS.2021.102057
参考文献ReferencesGuilford, J.P. (1950) Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444-454. <br>https://doi.org/10.1037/h0063487Sternberg, R.J., Amabile, T.M., Lubart, T.I., et al. (1999) Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge University Press, New York.Wolfe, E.W. (2004) Identifying Rater Effects Using Latent Trait Models. Psychology Science, 46, 35-51.Wolfe, E.W. and McVay, A. (2012) Application of Latent Trait Models to Identifying Substantively Interesting Raters. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 31, 31-37. <br>https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2012.00241.xRunco, M.A. and Smith, W.R. (1992) Interpersonal and Intrapersonal Evaluations of Creative Ideas. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 295-302. <br>https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(92)90105-XBlair, C.S. and Mumford, M.D. (2007) Errors in Idea Evaluation: Preference for the Unoriginal? The Journal of Creative Behavior, 41, 197-222. <br>https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2007.tb01288.x姜竹卿. 创造性评价: 参考系、评价主体和评价指标的作用[D]: [硕士学位论文]. 重庆: 西南大学, 2019.Amabile, T.M. (1982) Social Psychology of Creativity: A Consensual Assessment Technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 997-1013. <br>https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.43.5.997Amabile, T.M. (1996) Creativity in Context: Update to the Social Psychology of Creativity. Westview, Boulder.Kline, P. (2000) The Handbook of Psychological Testing. 2nd Edition, Vol. 25, Routledge, London.Baer, J., Kaufman, J.C. and Riggs, M. (2009) Rater-Domain Interactions in the Consensual Assessment Technique. International Journal of Creativity & Problem Solving, 19, 87-92. <br>https://doi.org/10.1037/e492272008-001Kaufman, J.C., Baer, J., Cole, J.C. and Sexton, J.D. (2008) A Comparison of Expert and Nonexpert Raters Using the Consensual Assessment Technique. Creativity Research Journal, 20, 171-178.
<br>https://doi.org/10.1080/10400410802059929Freeman, C., Son, J. and McRoberts, L.B. (2015) Comparison of Novice and Expert Evaluations of Apparel Design Illustrations Using the Consensual Assessment Technique. International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology and Education, 8, 122-130. <br>https://doi.org/10.1080/17543266.2015.1018960Kaufman, J.C., Baer, J. and Cole, J.C. (2009) Expertise, Domains, and the Consensual Assessment Technique. Journal of Creative Behavior, 43, 223-233. <br>https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2009.tb01316.xKaufman, J.C., Gentile, C.A. and Baer, J. (2005) Do Gifted Student Writers and Creative Writing Experts Rate Creativity the Same Way? Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 260-265. <br>https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620504900307Kaufman, J.C., Baer, J., Cropley, D.H., Reiter-Palmon, R. and Sinnett, S. (2013) Furious Activity vs. Understanding: How Much Expertise Is Needed to Evaluate Creative Work? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 7, 332-340. <br>https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034809刘烯琴, 刘玲, 宋宜颖, 刘嘉. 流体智力对创造性倾向的影响: 人格的中介作用[C]//第十七届全国心理学学术会议论文摘要集, 2014: 1145-1147.葛樱. 个体的创造力水平对创造性产品评价的影响及其潜在机制[D]: [硕士学位论文]. 上海: 华东师范大学, 2018.Miller, G.A. (1956) The Magical Number Seven plus or minus Two: Some Limits on Our Capacity for Processing Information. Psychological Review, 63, 81-97. <br>https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043158Scheibehenne, B., Greifeneder, R. and Todd, P.M. (2010) Can There Ever Be Too Many Options? A Meta-Analytic Review of Choice Overload. Journal of Consumer Research, 37, 409-425. <br>https://doi.org/10.1086/651235Karwowski, M., Dul, J., Gralewski, J., Jauk, E., Jankowska, D.M., Gajda, A., Benedek, M., et al. (2016) Is Creativity without Intelligence Possible? A Necessary Condition Analysis. Intelligence, 57, 105-117.
<br>https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2016.04.006Jauk, E., Benedek, M., Dunst, B. and Neubauer, A.C. (2013) The Relationship between Intelligence and Creativity: New Support for the Threshold Hypothesis by Means of Empirical Breakpoint Detection. Intelligence, 41, 212-221.
<br>https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2013.03.003Tan, M., Mourgues, C., Hein, S., MacCormick, J., Barbot, B. and Grigorenko, E. (2015) Differences in Judgments of Creativity: How Do Academic Domain, Personality, and Self-Reported Creativity Influence Novice Judges’ Evaluations of Creative Productions? Journal of Intelligence, 3, 73-90. <br>https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence3030073Benedek, M., Nordtvedt, N., Jauk, E., Koschmieder, C., Pretsch, J., Krammer, G. and Neubauer, A.C. (2016) Assessment of Creativity Evaluation Skills: A Psychometric Investigation in Prospective Teachers. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 21, 75-84. <br>https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2016.05.007Silvia, P.J., Winterstein, B.P., Willse, J.T., Barona, C.M., Cram, J.T., Hess, K.I., Richard, C.A., et al. (2008) Assessing Creativity with Divergent Thinking Tasks: Exploring the Reliability and Validity of New Subjective Scoring Methods. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 2, 68-85. <br>https://doi.org/10.1037/1931-3896.2.2.68Kaufman, J.C., Plucker, J.A. and Baer, J. (2008) Essentials of Creativity Assessment.Daly, S.R., Seifert, C.M., Yilmaz, S. and Gonzalez, R. (2016) Comparing Ideation Techniques for Beginning Designers. Journal of Mechanical Design, 138, Article ID: 101108. <br>https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4034087Valgeirsdottir, D., Onarheim, B. and Gabrielsen, G. (2015) Product Creativity Assessment of Innovations: Considering the Creative Process. International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation, 3, 95-106.
<br>https://doi.org/10.1080/21650349.2014.954626Duerksen, G.L. (1972) Some Effects of Expectation on Evaluation of Recorded Musical Performance. Journal of Research in Music Education, 20, 268-272. <br>https://doi.org/10.2307/3344093Bernberg, R.E. (1953) Prestige Suggestion in Art as Communication. The Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 23-30.
<br>https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1953.9711433Gergen, K.J. and Breger, I. (1965) Two Forms of Inference and Problems in the Assessment of Creativity. Proceedings of the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, 20, 215-216.
<br>https://doi.org/10.1037/e469432008-107Marcus, S., Opera, P. and Sandulescu, M. (1973) Painting Evaluation as Affected by Properties of the Stimulus. Revista de Psihologie, 19, 225-237.Kirk, U., Skov, M., Hulme, O., Christensen, M.S. and Zeki, S. (2009) Modulation of Aesthetic Value by Semantic Context: An fMRI Study. NeuroImage, 44, 1125-1132. <br>https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.10.009Hennessey, B.A. (1994) The Consensual Assessment Technique: An Examination of the Relationship between Ratings of Product and Process Creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 7, 193-208.
<br>https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419409534524韩建涛, 庞维国. 小而灵通, 老而顽固? 年龄信息对创造性观念评价的影响及其机制[J]. 心理科学, 2020(3): 615-621.Lebuda, I. and Karwowski, M. (2013) Tell Me Your Name and I’ll Tell You How Creative Your Work Is: Author’s Name and Gender as Factors Influencing Assessment of Products’ Creativity in Four Different Domains. Creativity Research Journal, 25, 137-142. <br>https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2013.752297Leslie, S.J., Cimpian, A., Meyer, M. and Freeland, E. (2015) Expectations of Brilliance Underlie Gender Distributions across Academic Disciplines. Science, 347, 262-265. <br>https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1261375Kaufman, J.C., Baer, J., Agars, M.D. and Loomis, D. (2010) Creativity Stereotypes and the Consensual Assessment Technique. Creativity Research Journal, 22, 200-205. <br>https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2010.481529Hennessey, B.A. (2003) Is the Social Psychology of Creativity Really Social? Moving beyond a Focus on the Individual. In: Paulus, P. and Nijstad, B., Eds., Group Creativity: Innovation through Collaboration, Oxford University Press, New York, 181-201. <br>https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195147308.003.0009Karwowski, M. (2009) I’m Creative, But Am I Creative? Similarities and Differences between Self-Evaluated Small and Big-C Creativity in Poland. The International Journal of Creativity & Problem Solving, 19, 7-26.Lan, L. and Kaufman, J.C. (2012) American and Chinese Similarities and Differences in Defining and Valuing Creative Products. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 46, 285-306. <br>https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.19Goncalo, J.A. and Staw, B.M. (2006) Individualism-Collectivism and Group Creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100, 96-109. <br>https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.11.003Hong, S.W. and Lee, J.S. (2015) Nonexpert Evaluations on Architectural Design Creativity across Cultures. Creativity Research Journal, 27, 314-321. <br>https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2015.1087245Birney, D.P., Beckmann, J.F. and Seah, Y.Z. (2016) More than the Eye of the Beholder: The Interplay of Person, Task, and Situation Factors in Evaluative Judgments of Creativity. Learning and Individual Differences, 51, 400-408.
<br>https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.07.007Zhou, J., Wang, X.M., Song, L.J. and Wu, J. (2017) Is It New? Personal and Contextual Influences on Perceptions of Novelty and Creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102, 180-202. <br>https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000166张红, 任靖远, 刘晨阳, 罗劲. 创造性产品评价中的从众效应[J]. 心理学报, 2019, 51(6): 688-698.徐建平, 段海燕, 李露, 朱黎明. 发散思维测验人工评分与机器评分比较[C]//第二十二届全国心理学学术会议摘要集, 2019: 2048-2049.韩建涛, 刘文令, 庞维国. 创造力测评中的评分者效应[J]. 心理科学进展, 2019, 27(1): 171-180.