Comparison of Developmental and Cognitive Theories of Creativity - Literature review Example

This essay compares and evaluates two theoretical approaches of creativity namely developmental and cognitive theories of creativity. The developmental theoretical approach to creativity asserts that “creativity develops over time (from potential to achievement); mediated by an interaction of the person and the environment” (Kozbelt, Beghetto & Runco 2010, p. 27). The cognitive approach to creativity on the other hand asserts that the “ideational thought processes are foundational to creative persons and accomplishments” (Kozbelt et al. 2010, p. 27). Clearly, the two theoretical approaches view creativity differently. In this essay, such differences are discussed with examples. The main focus of developmental theoretical approaches to creativity includes the person, his/her potential, the product, and the place. The product in this case refers to the inventions, art, compositions, publications and other tangible forms that are subject to quantitative objectivity from other people. As indicated in Kozbelt et al.’s (2010) quotation above, developmental theorists assert that the environment plays a critical mediation role in shaping a person’s creativity. Cognitive theorists however focus on the person and the process, and do not recognise the environment as having necessary critical roles to the development of creativity. Another major difference between development and cognitive theoretical approaches to creativity is that the former posits that a creative person develops more creativity gradually, thus suggesting that creativity can be enhanced through time. Such reasoning could be interpreted to mean that even those people, who are not exposed to suitable environments early in life, can still find their creativity later in life, if and when they get the right exposure. Cognitive theorists on the other hand hold the opinion that people with ideas can develop them to big creative ideas through the thought processes (Smith, Ward & Finke 2006). Further, and since creativity resides in one’s cognition, the mind and one’s thought are the only limitation to one’s creativity. Arguably, one has to be very purposeful in the cognition process since too many divergent thoughts can lead to confusion and less precise ideas or creative thoughts. In a research conducted by Goertzel and Goertzel (1976), it was revealed that eminent creative people had grown in specific environments hence supporting the developmental theoretical approach. In an example, Goertzel and Goertzel (1976) indicate that children who were exposed to diverse experiences early in life were more likely to become creative when compared to those who grew up in one place. Albert and Runco (1989) also found out that children who enjoyed moderate freedom to explore their surroundings turned out to be more creative than those who did not have a similar level of independence. The foregoing examples are supported by Kozbelt et al. (2010, p. 26), who observe that “optimal independence allows children to develop autonomy that can be used in their thinking and would allow them to devise original ideas”. Dwelling on developmental theoretical approaches to creativity, Russ and Schafer (2006) also found out that play also affects creativity. Children raised up in environments where play and relaxation were supported were found to be more creative compared to those from more restrictive environments. This was because permissive environments were according to Russ and Schafer (2006), accommodative to imaginative and exploration play, which brought about creative ideas and thoughts. Cognitive theoretical approaches do on the other hand indicate that creativity has its basis in cognition. Kozbelt et al. (2010), observe that the assumption that creative people have special cognitive abilities need not be true. However, Kozbelt et al. (2010, p. 31) go ahead to say that “there is some indication that differences in cognition can play a major role in creativity”. Notably, the cognitive theories give emphasis to cognitive mechanisms as the foundation of creative thought. Such theories also underscore the role played by the person, especially because individual differences are thought to be major determinants of creativity. One of the notable characteristics of cognitive theories of creativity is the diversity therein. Different cognitive theories focus on different things such as universal capacities of the person, attention, memory, divergent thinking patterns, and conscious or preconscious functions of the mind (Kozbelt et al. 2010). One of the widely discussed cognitive theories of creativity is divergent and convergent thinking. According to Torrance (1995), divergent thinking happens when the mind processes thoughts, ideas and association in different directions. As a result of such cognitive processes, Torrance (1995) observes that new, original and creative ideas may be realised. Convergent thinking on the other hand is, according to Cropley (2006), a process of thinking where a conventional or presumably correct answer is identified in relation to a given situation. Both convergent and divergent thinking can generate creative thoughts since they enable a person to generate new, effective and original ideas (Cropley 2006). Cognitive theorists believe that they can be able to determine what happens in the pre-conception stage of creative ideas through research. In fact, Kozbelt et al. (2010) observe that research conducted in the past 10 years suggests that using information sourced from different places is at the centre of creative problem solving. For example, while investigating how the concept of angry weather came into being (i.e. assuming the metaphor is seen as a creative combination of words), a cognitive theorist would focus on the person who came up with the metaphor. Questions such as: what was the person thinking about; what inspired his word combination to generate the metaphor; how many other thoughts about describing the same weather had he come up with; what led him to believe that the weather can be angry; and what was the process of coming up with the metaphor like would probably be asked. Applying the ‘angry weather’ metaphor to developmental theories of creativity, it would be expected that theorists would want to relate the creator of the metaphor to his upbringing. Some of the things they would want to investigate include: has the creative person always had a knack for word combination and metaphor formations; what was his environment growing up; was he exposed to extreme weather conditions; and has his creativity increased over the years as he grew older among others. Arguably, and from the example above, it would appear that developmental theorists consider creativity as something that (some) people are born with, and they can develop or enhance over time depending on their experiences and exposure. Cognitive theoretical approaches on the other hand appear to believe that all people have creative potential in them; it is only their thinking patterns and cognitive processes that dictate whether creativity in each person is indeed realised. As has been noted by Kozbelt et al. (2010), theorists who subscribe to the cognitive theoretical approach emphasise that ideas can (and have been) obtained from cognitive psychology processes such as creative imagery, conceptual expansion, and conceptual combination. The metaphor ‘angry weather’ is an example of conceptual combination where two words are combined to make meaning. Comparing the viewpoints adopted by developmental and cognitive theoretical approaches to creativity, one notes that the former is more of a traditional approach, while the latter is a combination of traditional and innovative approaches. Discussing the connection between cognition and creativity for example, Runco and Chand (1995) observe that many of the recognised structures and processes are drawn from cognitive psychology for purposes of understanding creative thinking, hence justifying the traditional claim. The innovative claim on the other hand stems from the need by theorists to understand emergent processes, which have not been recognised elsewhere (Beghetto & Kaufman 2007; Runco & Chand 1995). Developmental theoretical approaches arguably follow the old ways of small-to-big creativity without acknowledging the probability of new developments that may alter the trajectory of creative thinking. Comparing the two theoretical approaches, it is also evident that developmental theories focus on the person and the environment, while cognitive theories focus on the mind’s ability to think and process information. The differences between the two theoretical approaches notwithstanding, a critical look at them reveals that each has some truth in it. For example, one cannot deny (and empirical evidence cited in Kozbelt et al. (2010) has proven) the possibility that environmental factors play a role in shaping creativity. It is also true that creativity is a thought process hence justifying the approach taken by cognitive theorists. Between the two theoretical approaches however, the main questions that remain unresolved are: Is creativity a matter of nature or nurture? Are all of us born creative or is creativity a preserve of a few people who are born with that potential? The cultural difference in creativity as indicated by Paletz and Peng (2008) also remains a puzzle that has not been resolved in a manner that satisfies all people. For example, if developmental theories were to be applied across cultures, would they have the same results? Similarly, would cognitive theoretical approaches have similar results across cultures? The obvious answer to that is that they would not. As with many other theoretical approaches however, the two approaches discussed herein represent a panoply of perspectives. Despite their differences, they inform discussions relating to creativity, and by so doing, generate new ideas regarding the subject. References 1. Runco, M & Chand, I 1995, ‘Cognition and creativity’, Educational Psychology Review, vol.7, pp. 243-267. 2. Russ, S & Schafer, E 2006, ‘Affect in fantasy play, emotion in memories, and divergent thinking’, Creativity Research Journal, vol. 18, pp. 347-354. 3. Albert, R & Runco, M 1989, ‘Independence and cognitive ability in gifted and exceptionally gifted boys’, Journal of Youth and Adolescence, vol. 18, pp. 221-230. 4. Beghetto, R & Kaufman, J 2007, ‘Toward a broader conception of creativity: a case for mini-c creativity’, Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, vol. 1, pp. 73-79. 5. Cropley, A 2006, ‘In praise of convergent thinking’, Creativity Research Journal of Sociology, vol. 84, pp. 391-404. 6. Goertzel, V & Goertzel, M 1976, Cradles of eminence, Little, Brown, Boston, MA. 7. Torrance, E 1995, Why fly? Ablex, Norwood, NJ. 8. Paletz, S & Peng, K 2008, ‘Implicit theories of creativity across cultures: novelty and appropriateness in two product domains’, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 283-302 9. Smith, S., Ward, T & Finke, R 2006, ‘Cognitive processes in creative contexts’, viewed 18 July 2013, < http://www.tamu.edu/faculty/stevesmith/SmithCreativity/SmithIntro.pdf> 10. Kozbelt, A., Beghetto, R &Runco, M 2010, ‘Theories of Creativity’, In J Kaufman & R Sternberg (Eds.), Handbook of creativity, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 20-47. Read More