The Definition and Measurement of Creativity: What Do We Know?

JAAFAR EL-MURAD

Creativity is arguably the most important element in advertising success. This article reviews the trends in creativity research and asks (1) what do we know about advertising creativity, (2) how can we measure it, and (3) how can we enhance and encourage it? After tracking Its importance, this article examines how it is defined, the nature of the theories underpinning it. and the various typologies suggested by researchers. The Impact of issues such as the environment, management practice, and myths on enhancing and encouraging advertising creativity are assessed. It is argued that, to encourage and enhance creativity, managers should address the effects of self-doubt, fear of risk taking, and fear of opposition and criticism.

Westminster Business School University of Westminster muradj@wmin.ac.uk

DOUGLAS C. WEST

Westminster Business School University of Westminster westd@wmin.ac.uk

the least scientific cispect of adxertising <ind the must important (Reid, Kinj;, and DeLorme, 1948). As with other forms of creativity, advertising creativity embraces both "originality" and "innovation" (Fletcher, 1990). To be successful, it must have impact, quality, st\'le; <inei relevance. Ideas must be new, unique, and relevant to the product and to the target audience in order to be useful as solutioas to marketing communications problems. The resultant advertising should pass such tests as the Universal Advertising Standards established by D'Arcy Masius Benton & Bowies (Belch and Belch, 1998). This is because a "winning creative idea," one that stand.s out from the crowd and is memorable, can ha\'e enormous impact on sales, may influence the hiring and firing of advertising agencies, and affect their remuneration (see, for example, Blair, 1988; Buzzell, 1964; Michell and Cataquet, 1992; Rossiter and Percy, 1997; Wackman, Salmon, and Salmon, 1986/1987). However, despite the most systematic and scientific approaches toward developing winning creative ideas, the evidence suggests it is a random process. This is because there is a high degree of chance in coming up with a winning creative idea, and random creativity is therefore pivotal (Gross, 1972; O'Connor, Wille1 8 8 JDOeflflL OF flOOfflTiSIOfiflESEHRCHJune 2 0 0 4

CREATIVITY IS tit once

main, and MacLachlan, 1996). Renowned academic researchers (e.g., Amabile, 1982; Runco and Sakamoto, 1999) have found creativity to be among the most complex of human behaviors to describe. It has even been suggested that creativity cannot be defined or measured (Callahan, 1991; Khatena, 1982). CK'erall, it is timely to review the trends in creative research and ask (1) what do we know about advertising creativity, (2) how can we measure it, and, (3) how can we enhance and encoLirage it? Before beginning the review, a briet outline of terms is required. "Advertising creativity" is used for the process of producing and developing ad\'ertising ideas. It is acknowledged that treatments and executions require creativity, indeed even Ihe choice and use of media can be highly creative, but for the purposes of this article the emphasis is on the centra! creative idea. The importance of creativity is acknowledged by the scale and scope of the research activity that has been conducted both to understand it and to examine its application in diverse fields. Tiiese include, for example, art (e.g., Brower, 2000; Kris, 1952), music (e.g.. Hickey, 2001), science (e.g., Innamorato, 1998), education (e.g.. Freeman, 1983; Naglieri, 2(101), management (e.g., De DO!: 10.1017/S0021849904040097

DEFINITION AND MEASUREMENT OF CREATIVITY

Bono, 1971; King and Anderson, IWl); Sethi, Smith, and Park, 2001), and advertising (e.g.. Gross, 1967, 1972; Hirschman, 1989; Kendrick, Slayden, and Broyles, 1996; Kover, Goldberg, and James, 1995; Moriarty, 1991; Moriarty and Van den Bergh, 1984). Some observers have noted a decline in Ihe le\-e] of interest shown in advertising creativity research (e.g., Zinkhan, 1993). Others maintain that the topic continues to recei\'e a great deal of attention (e.g., Plucker and Runco, 1998). To throw some light on the issue, a search of the ABI/INFORM Global database on Proquest" was carried out for articles featuring either "creativity" or "creative" in the title, in an attempt to reconcile these contradictory views. The number of such articles rose steadily between 1985-1995. In 1985, there were only 18 titles, but by the end of 1995 this had risen to 85 per yearclose to a fourfold increase. For comparison, there were 174 articles with the word "marketing" in the title in 1985, and 399 in 1995: an increase ot only 129 percent, though admittedly from a higher base (see Figure 1). Having made these points, the numbers should be viewed cautiously and interpreted for wliat they are based on a simple search for terms in publications available since 1985. It is not known how those terms were used by authors. Nor is it clear what the role oi the growth of publications covered by Proquest'-: has been, as the expansion of the number of journals indexed is likely to have played a role. Taking these ca\'eats into account, the results stili point to a significant expansion in the early 1990s and then a fall back in the late 1990s. Unftirtuiiately, owing to changes in the presentation of the data by Proquest*, it was not possible to continue the analysis beyond 2001. However, there are signs of renewed interest: recent papers include, for example. White and Smith (2001), An-

Creativity 90

Marketing 450

400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0

^ ^ Creative/creativity in Title Marketing in Title

Figure 1 Number of Articles with Titles of "Creative" or "Creativity" Compared with "Marketing" Cited in Proquest

driopoulos (2(Xn), and Koslow,Sasser, and Riordan (2003).

WHAT DO WE KNOW? Definitions

Creativity is often described in such terms as "creative thinking" or "ability," "problem solving," "Imagination," or "innovation." Many definitions involve an aspect of problem solving, where the solution to the problem requires insight (e.g., Simonton, 1999; Stcrnberg and Davidson, 1995). Most involve an aspect of "newness" or "originality/' for example, "Greativity is the ability to produce work that is novel (i.e., original, unexpected)" (Stemberg and Lubart, 1999). Originality is a required but insufficient cimdition for creativity: the work must also be of value; that is, it should be "appropriate (i.e., useful, adapti\'e concerning task constraints)" (Storn-

berg and Lubart, 1999, p. 3). This combination of "novelty" and "appropriateness" or "usefulness" has met with widespread acceptance (e.g., Amabile, 1983; Gruber and Wallace, 1999; Lumsden, 1999; Martindale, 1999; Mumford and Gustafson, 1988; Unsworth, 2001). There are differences of opinion about the role and importance of creativity in advertising and marketing. Managers tend to value "effectiveness," usually measured by changes in awareness levels or in market sales, whereas creative people generally have a low regard for these kinds of measures (Kover, Goldberg, and James, 1993). "Effective" advertising and "creative" ad\*ertising are the two concepts that most frequently emerge in the practitioner literature (see, for example, the writings of Ogilvy, 1964,1983). Hirschman (1989) also showed that opinions tend to vary with the role of the participant. Product managers and ac-

June 2 0 0 4 JOUfKieL OF HDllEllTISIIlll fiESEflUCH 1 8 9

DEFINITION AND MEASUREMENT OF CREATIVITY

thought designed to produce goal-directed and problem-solving advertisements and arts mainly in its purpose. Advertising creativity must commercials," This definition, based onDillion (1975), Moriarty (1991), Politz (1975), achieve objectives set by othersthis is not usually the and Reid and Rotfeld (1976), incorporates four key elements: originality, imagination, goal-direction, and problem solving. case in the arts The authors maintain that advertising creativity is a special form of creati\'ity and differs from others in that "originality and imagination must operate within a goalcount executives view ad\'ertising as a deemed "pleasing" in some way whereas directed and problem-solving context" means to achieve a specific objective, such in advertising it is not sufficient to "please" (Reid, King, and DeLorme, 1998, p. 3). Yet, as to create awareness, desire, interest, or always necessary to do so. To be sucthe concepts of "relevance" and "appropriand/or action. This objective follows from cessful, creative advertising must first be the client brief, itself a result of the mar}u.'ticed and then have a specified effect on ateness" of mainstream creativity research also imply goal attainment and problem keting plan, and is guided by research (Bell, the viewer. If it is not noticed, or if this efsolving, and are key features of other def1992).Creative teams or individuals, on the fect is not achie'i'ed, the creative endeavor initions of creativity (e.g., Amabile, 1983; other hand, tended to see the advertiseis considered to have faiied. Martiridale, 1999; Mumford and Gustafson, ment as an opportimity to demonstrate their Greativity involves newness but this need 1988; Stemberg and Lubart, 1999; Unsworth, own skills and aesthetic values and thereby not be "new to the world." Leo Burnett tor 2001). Architects and designers of all kinds to promote tlieir careers (Hirschinan, 1989). example, defined advertising creativity as "create" by applying their originality and Perhaps it is the friction between these con"the art of establishing new and meaningimagination to solve problems and achieve flicting interests that results in great adverful relationships between previously ungoals that are set, usually, by others. An arttising, but it has been found that creativity related things in a manner that is relevant, ist may paint for the purpose of selfis necessary for effectiveness and that it is believable, and in good taste, but which expression, but she or he may also do it for this that "pushes the message into viewsomehow presents the product in a fresh critical recognition, fame, and fortune ers' minds" (Kover, Goldberg, and James, new light" (Burnett, 1968). Combining two surely a "goal-directed" context. Hirsch1995, p. 29). or more previously existing items, materiman (1989) showed that advertising S<ime writers maintain that it is not creals, ideas, thoughts, concepts in a new way creatives are motivated by similar considative unless it is useful (e.g., Amabile, 1983; can not only be creative, it is considered by erations, even though their ostensible priMumford and Gustafson, 1988), others view many to be the essence of creativity promary motive is to achieve the advertising creativity as an associative process (e.g., viding, " . . . the combinatorial leap which objectives of their clients. White (1972, in Mednick, 1962; Mendelsohn, 1976), with is generally described as the hallmark of Zinkhan, 1993, p. 1) maintained that "the some contending that creativity is not a unicreativity" (Mendelsohn, 1976, in Martinprocess of creativity in advertising (or martary concept at all. It has been argued that dale, 1999, p. 139). Reid, King, and Deketing) is more or less identical with the there are different types of creativity: reLorme (1998, p. 3) define advertising prcKess of creativity in the arts and sciences." sponsive, expected, contributory, and procreativity as "original and imaginative acti\T (Unsworth, 2001), or that it consists of a number of elements, each of which must be present for creativity to take place (e.g., Csiks/entmihalyi, 1988; Rhodes, 1961). CreTo be successful, creative advertising must first be noativity in advertising differs from creatix^ity in the arts mainly in its purpose. ticed and then have a specified effect on the viewer. If it Advertising creativity must achieve objecis not noticed, or if this effect is not achieved, the cretives set by othersthis is not usually the case in the arts. Success in the arts is ative endeavor is considered to have failed. achieved when the creative products are

Creativity in advertising differs from creativity in the

1 9 0 JOyfinflL Df (lOUERTISIIlG RESEflRCH June 2 0 0 4

DEFINITION AND MEASUREMENT OF CREATIVITY

. . . advertising creativity is a special form of creativity and differs from others in that "originality and imagination must operate within a goal-directed and problemsolving context."

Theories Underpinning any definition of advertising creativity is a mental model. The three primary theories of creativity are: (1) Primary Process Gognition, (2) Defocused Attention, and (3) Associative Hierarchies (Martindale, 1999, pp. 138-39). Primary Process Cognition dates from Kris (1952) and postulates that creative indi\iduais are more able to switch between primary and secondary cognitive modes, primary being the mode of dreaming, reverie, psychosis, and hypnosis. "It is autistic, free-associative, analogical" (Martindale, 1999, p. 138), and a probable explanation of Kipling's (1937/1985) "Daemon" residing in the subconscious mind of Freudian psychology (Sternberg and Lubart, 1999). Secondary process cognition, by contrast, "is the abstract, logical, reality-oriented thought of waking consciousness" (Martindaie, 1999, p. 138). Creati\'e people switch between the two because the primary state enables the discovery of new combinations of mental elements, while the secondary state is necessary for elaboration of creative concepts identified in the associative primary state. Defocused Attention (Mendelsohn, 1976) concerns the number of elements that an indixidual is able to keep in mind at one time. The greater this number, the more likeiy it is that the person can make meaningful and useful combinations and thus formulate creative ideas. There is evidence to support the hypothesi.s that less creative people have more narrow-

focused attention than do those who are more creative (Dewing and Battye, 1971; Dykes and McGhie, 1976). The theory of Associative Hierarchies w'as first proposed by Mednick in 1962. He stated that creativity is an associative process in\olving, "the ability or tendency which serves to bring otherwise mutually remote ideas into contiguity [to] facilitate a creative solution." Tliis leads to a view of advertising creativity being the process of associating previously unrelated facts in order that previously unrealized relationships between them become apparent (Reid and Rotteld, 1976). If a person can only give a narrow range of answers in response to divergent tliinking tests, he or she is said to have a steep asstKiati\'e hierarchy. Conversely, a wide range of answers indicates a fiat associative hierarchy. According to Mednick (1962), creative individuals have flat associative hierarchies, so are more able to make original associations and thus have more creative ideas. Reid and Rotfeld (1976) were interested in establishing the role of the associative process within advertising creativity. This had previously been assumed, primarily by advertising practitioners, based largely on their own experience, and from studies in the psychology literature on creativity. Reid and Rotfeld (1976) were particularly concerned with establishing the relationship between associative ability, attitude, and creative ability, and developed .1 conceptual model to show how

this might work in the advertising context. In accordance with Mednick (1962) and Mendel.sohn (1976), they pointed out that advertising creativity was dependent on the availability of a large number of facts with which, and from which, to draw associations. Of the three theories, the associative has dominated the literature, but, as noted by Martindak' (1999), the three theories are virtually the same (albeit using quite different vocabulary) as all support the notion that associative ability is at the core of creative ability. As a final point, it is worth mentioning that Sternberg and Lubart (1991, 1992, 1995, 1996) and Sternberg, O'Hara, and Lubart (1997) proposed an "Investment Theory of Creativity." Their proposition is based on confluence theory, which suggests that creative people are willing to "bin/ low nud sell hi^h" in the realm of ideas. That is, they pursue (invest in) ideas that are of little interest to other people, or are unheard of, but that they believe ha\'e "growth" potential. When first presented, these ideas meet resistance. The creative person persists in the face of this resistance and, eventually, is able to "sell high." Creativity requires the confluence of six factors: intellectual ability, knowledge, styles of thinking, personality, motivation, and environment. Again the link to the idea of associative ability can be made.
Typologies for Academic Research

Placing creativity within a typology for measurement by advertising researchers has presented a number of challenges. First to be mentioned has to be Rhodes (1961) who provided the first widely quoted creative typology. He argued that creativity does not occur in a vacuum, instead it is demonstrated by (I) the creative person, who, by means of (2) the
creative process produces (3) the creati'oe

prodnd. in response to the macru/micn>

June 2 0 0 4 JOURflRL OF HOyERTISIIlG RESERRCR 1 9 1

DEFINITION AND MEASUREMENT OF CREATIVITY

environment in which he or ;?hc is located, which he called (4) the creative press. Plucker and Renzulli (1999) fiirther separate "press" into "environment" and "persuasion," but the distinctions are hard to disentangle. Thus knowledge of "creativity" may be gained by studyinj^ any of these four interlinked elements. The "creativity" of people can be evaluated by direct study of the creative person, or by assessing the quaiity and/or quantity of the creative praduct. The process may be inferred by observing the persoti and the product in combination, whilst the pre^s may be studied for its effect on the other three. Following from Rhodes, Sternberg and Lubart (1999) ha\'e outlined a seven-part typology based on the development stages of creativity during which a particular approach was dominant, rather than the description of the overall components as identified by Rhodes. The first of these was (1) the Mystical approach, where creativity was believed to be inspired by some external, "spiritual" forcethe "muse" of classical poets and was thus not really a suitable subject for scientific enquiry. Kipling (1937/1985), for example, spoke of the "Daemon" that lives in
the writer's pen: "When i/oiir Dnemoii is in charge, tio not think cofiscioiisli/. Drift,

wail, and abn/." (2) The Pragmatic approach involved practitioners who developed and taught techniques that they believed could improve creativity but that had little or no research basis. A pioneer of this approach was Osborn (1953), who proposed a set of "rules" for what came to be known as "brainstorming," which worked by creating a climate (cf. environment or press) conducive to divergent thinking. De Bono (e.g., 1971, 1985, 1992) has been the leading proponent of this approach. The Psychodynamic approach (3) is based on the Freudian belief that croativitv results trom the resolution of

conflict between the conscious reality and subconscious drives. According to this view, creative products are a socially acceptable way of expressing otherwise unacceptable unconscious wishes. Despite the recent debunking of Freudian psychoiogy, the emphasis on the subconscious is noteworthy and has relevance to theories involving "primary process cognition" (see Anderson, 1992; Martindale, 1999). The Psychometric approach (4) to studying creativity was developed in response to Guilford's (1950) address to the American Psychological Association. In this address, he drew attention to the lack of creativity research, which he attributed in part to the paucity of highly creative individuals that were available for study. He proposed instead that "ordinary people" be studied, and their creativity measured by the use of divergent thinking tests, such as the Unusual Uses Test, in which subjects think of as many ns possible uses for an everyday object, such as a brick (Sternberg and Lubart, 1999). Subjects are scored for "fluency" (the number of uses suggested) and originality. Although tests such as these arc not strictly-speaking psychometric, this is how they have come to be known in the literature. Guilford and others developed tests that enabled differentiation between subjects on a standard "creativity" scale. The psychometric approach to creativity is still very much in use today, although often primarily to provide support, in the form of quantification, for other studies. Cognitive (5) is concerned with understanding the creative process. Studies (e.g., Finke, Ward, and Smith, 1992; Smith, Ward, and Finke, 1995; Sternberg and Davidson, 1995) suggest that there are two phases to creative thought: the generative phase and the exploratory phase. Social-Personality (6) concerns the notion that creativity is more prevalent in certain personality types and

in particular stxiocultural situations (Amabile, 1983; Barron, 1968, 1969; Fysenck, 1993; Cough, 1979; MacKinnon, 1965). Traits common to creative people in advertising include originality, intelligence and vision in terms of recognizing big ideas (Ewing, Napoli, and West, 2001; West, 1993, 1994), and the willingness to take risks (El-Murad and West, 2003; West, 1999; West, Miciak, and Sargeant, 1999). As noted by Martindale (1999, p. 137), "[creativity] requires the simultaneous presence of a number of traits (e.g., intelligence, perseverance, unconventionatity, the ability to think in a particular manner)." Finally, the Confluence approach (7) is based on the idea that creativity can only take place if several comptments are present. These are motivation, domain-relevant knowledge and abilities, and creativityrelevant skills (Amabile, 1983). These "creativity-rele\ant skills" include "(a) a cognitive style that involves coping wifh complexities and breaking one's mental set during problem solving; (b) knowledge of heuristics for generating novel ideas, such as trying a coimter-intuitive approach; and (c) a work style characterized by concentrated effort, an ability to set aside problems, and high energy" (Sternberg and Lubart, 1999, p. 10).
MEASUREMENT

Hocevar (1981) reviewed the criteria and methods for measuring creativity that were then available and concluded that they could be classified into 10 categories: tests of divergent thinking, attitude and interest inventories, personality inventories, biographical inventories, teacher nominations, peer nominations, supervisor ratings, judgments of products, eminence, and self-reported creative activities and achievements. These can be further grouped info the two broad categories of psychometric tests (the first four) and expert opinion (the remaining six).

1 9 2 JOyfiflRL or HDyERTISIIiG flESEflflCH June 2 0 0 4

DEFINITION AND MEASUREMENT OF CREATIVITY

Psychometric Tests

The first creativity tests to be used were those that followed Cuilford's 1950 address. Often referred to as divergent thinking tests, they included Guilford's "Unusual Uses Test" (Guilford, Merrifield, and Wilson, 1938); his "Structure of the Intellect" Test (SOI) (Guilford, 1967); Mcdnick's "Remote Associates Test" (Mednick, 1962); Torrance's "Tests of Creative Thinking" (TTCT) (Torrance, 1974), based on Guilford's SOI; and Meeker's "Structure of the IntellectLearning Abilities Test" (SOI-LA) (Meeker and Meeker, 1982), also based on CaiiU'ord's SOI. Tlie TTCT is still the most commonly used. It can be scored for "fluency" (the total number of relevant responses), "flexibility" (the number of different categories of relevant responses), "originality" (the rarity of the responses), and "elaboration" (the amount of detail in the responses) (Sternberg and Lubart, 1999). TTCT tests are available in both \'crbal (thinking creatiwly with words) and figural (thinking creatively with pictures) versions (Hickey, 2001). There are seven verbal activities involving "asking," "guessing causes," "guessing consequences," "product improvement," "unusual uses," "unusual questions," and "just suppose" and three figural activities "picture construction," "picture completion," and "lines/circles" (Cropiey, 2000). Psychometric measures such as these have been applied to all four main areas (person, product, process, press) of creativity research (Plucker and Renzulli, 1999). Critics of the psychometric measurement of creativity cite the lack of predictive validity of such tests. Standard \Q tests are frequently criticized as being inaccurate predictors of achievement in later life, yet they correlate about 0.70 with school grades: by contrast, divergent thinking tests typically correlate around 0.50 with subsequent achie\'e-

ment (Cropiey, 2000). Aspects of some of these "paper and pen" creativity tests are vulnerable to other criticism, Mednick's (1962) "Remote Associates Test" (llAT), for example, was a self-completion divergent-thinking creativity test in which subjects were required tc> suggest a fourth word that is in some way "remotely associated" with three given words. For example: 1. 2. 3. 4. rat/blue/cottage. Solution: cheese railroad/girl/class. Solution: working surprise/line/birthday. Solution: party out/dog/cat. Solution: house

Expert Opinion

The RAT consists of 30 such questions to be completed within 40 minutes. One drawback of this test (at least for international users) is that it is culture-specific. Another problem is that the test is verbal, making no allowance for visual creativity, whereas much of advertising creative is nonverbal or has significant nonverbal components. Zinkhan (1993) has argued that creativity defies measurement. Aside from the lack of a consensus about the true workings of the creative process, his logic was that because tests have predetermined correct answers and originality is a requirement of creativity, any respondent giving "correct" answers in a creativity test could not be creative. At a more specific Ie\'el, critics ha\'e also questioned whether tests measure creative thinking or even the ability to become creative (e.g., Weisberg, 1993), and the vulnerability of the tests to administration, scoring, and training effects. These include the test conditions: for example, whether or not the test is timed, whether it is presented more as a game than as a test, and whether or not subjects are told to he "creative." It has been shown that factors such as these influence originality and tluency scores (Chand and Runco, 1992; Runco and Okuda, 1991).

There is a \'iew that the only reliable way to identify creativity is by evaluating the creative product (e.g., Bailin, 1984). Assuming measurement scales could be developed, who should do the evaluation? Reid and Rotfeld (1976) used an "Expert Opinion Creative Ability Profile Scale" of their own devising. This comprised ten 7-interval rating scales, designed to measure creative ability. Their subjects were then rated on these 10 scales by expert judges, in this case instructors of the Ad\'ertising Creative Strategy and Tactics course. Inspired by Golann (1963), who had found a correlation between attitude and creative ability, the instrument used was based on Icek and Fishbein's (1969, 1970, 1972) attitudinal model. It assumed "that a person's attitude toward the act of creating a commercial is a function of the act's perceived consequences and its value to the person" (Reid and Rotfeld, 1976, p. 28). After analysis, the results were found to support the centrality of associative ability to advertising creativity. Amabile (1982) circumvented the problems of both the definition and the measurement of creativity with what she called the Consensual Assessment Technique (CAT), by which experts assess the "creativity" of creative products using their own indi\'idual criteria and their own definitions of creativity. A typical CAT item for rating the creativity of a painting reads: "On a scale of 1 to 5, and using your own subjective definition of creativity, rate the degree to which the painting is creative" (Hickey, 2001, p. 235). It is simply not possible, according to Amabile (1982), to articulate clear, objective criteria for a creative product, whereas, if appropriate judges independently agree that a given product is creative, then it can and must be accepted as such. By extension, the person who created the product is also creative. While it is impossible to summa-

June 2 0 0 4 JOyflflllL OF HOyEflTiSlflG RESEflHCtl 1 9 3

DEFINITION AND MEASUREMENT OF CREATIVITY

rize all of the creativity research. Table 1 shows the primary studies of creativityby author and measua^ used. The measures fall largely into the two broad categories of psychometric measurement and expert opinii)n, with a few studies using a combination of approaches.

Biometric A third and quite separate approach to creativity measurement is the Biometric Approach, which in\'olves the measurement of glucose metabolism in the brain during creative activity. This is gaining acceptance (Plucker and Renzulli, 1999)

because of developments in technology (see, for example, Haior et M., 1992; Haier and Benbow, 1995). The tests allow the study of brain function during particular types of mental activity, which could include the performance of creative tasks. The approach, however, is subject to the

TABLE 1 Summary of Measures Used in Principal Creativity and Advertising Creativity Studies
Author

Measure

Primarily psychometric Guilford (1950) Mednick (1962) Torrance (1962. 1974.1981) Getzels and Jackson (1962) Unusual Uses Test Remote Associates Test Torrance's Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT) Four creativity measures: word association, unusual uses, hidden shapes, make-up problems Wallach and Kogan (1965) Guilford (1967) Meeker (1969), Meeker and Meeker (1982) Plucker and Renzulli (1999) Naglieri and Das (1997) Naglieri (1999) Combination Reid and Rotfeld (1976) Mednick's Remote Associates Test Attitude Scales Expert Opinion Creative Ability Profile Scale Mumford et al. (1998) "Guessing Consequences" subtest of TTCT scored by panel of expert judges using 5-point scale Primarily expert opinion Amabile (1982) Consensual Assessment Technique: creative products assessed by expert judges, using own definitions of creativity Van den Bergh. Reid, and Schorin (1983) Creativity of advertising assessed by panel of top advertising creative people Gough(1992) Kover. Goldberg, and James (1995) Bell (1992) Stone (2000) 194 Creative Personality Scale One Show advertising creativity awards TV commercial popularity, measured by Video Storyboard Test Inc. Creativity of advertising assessed by expert panel of senior advertising students Torrance s Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT) Cognitive Assessment System (CAS) Planning. Attention. Simultaneous, and Successive cognitive tests (PASS); Stroop test A series of five untlmed divergent thinking tests Structure of the Intellect (SOI) Structure of the Intellect-Learning Abilities Test (SOI-LA)

DF flDyERIISIflG flESEfiaCH June 2 0 0 4

DEFINITION AND MEASUREMENT OF CREATIVITY

same limitations as the psychometric approach, namely the definition or identification of appropriate creati\ e tasks to use in the tests. In addition, it clearly may be employed only in laboratory conditions, which ha5 implications for time and cost, and therefore wouid only be feasible on a relatively small scale or o\'er an extended time period. Measuring Advertising Creativity ln seeking to measure the creativity of television commercials, Bell (1992) adopted a similar approach to Amabiie (19H2), taking the \iew that the popularity of the creative product {the television commercial) is a proxy for creativity. Instead of attempting to measure creati\ ity, the reaction of the target audience to advertising was measured. The advantage of this is that there is no need to identify experts, as any member of the target audience is an "appropriate judge" (Amabile, 1982). Stone (2001)) was interested in the relationship between three key aspects of advertising: recall, Ukeability, and creativity. In a telephone sur\ey, respondents were asked to name their most liked and their most disliked television advertisement and then, separately, these commercials were rated for creativity by an expert panel. Seventy percent of "liked" commercials \\'ere deemed by the panel to be creative, compared with only 46 percent oi those "disliked." This clearly provides support for Bell's method (1992). There are many other examples of judge or expert tiu'Lisurements ot" advertisirtg cre.itivity. In their 1983 study of the optimum number of creative alternatives to generate. Van den fJergh, Reid, and Schorin (1983) recruited a panel of top creative people to judge creativity. The panel consisted of a creative director, an art director, a copy supervisor, and a senior writer. Kover, Croldberg, and James (1995) used a similar approach in their stuJy ot tiie

relationship between creati\'ity and effectiveness. They examined advertising that had been judged creative by the conventional standards of the industry: creative advertising was advertising that had won creative awards. In the United States, the One Show creative award is one of the most co\Ttcd in the industry. Kover, Coldberg, and James (1995) selected this nward as evidence of creativity: thus ad\ ertising that had receix'ed this award was deemed "creative." This is consistent with Csikszentmihalyi (1999), who argued that creativity is "the ability to add something neu' to the culture" (p. 314) such that it is "sanctioned by some group entitled to make decisions as to what should or should not be included in the domain" (p. 315). For someone to be creati\e their w ork mu^t be recognized as such by those competent in the field, who have reached higher levels of their profession (Csikszentmihalyi, 1999). Creative award panels consist of advertising executives whtt have readied national or international prominence in their field, thus meeting this requirement. Advertising award panels operate in different ways. The process adopted hy London International Ad%ertising Awards (1998) is reproduced here for illustration: "Each judge receives, by courier, no more than two hours of material on videotape, slide, audiotape, printed proofs or actual packaging. Each judge has several weeks, not several minutes, to re.ich a decision. And change that decision, several times, so we've been told. Our judges are the top ranked, most highiy awarded professionals in their disciplines. As you would expect, they bring a truly international perspective to their task.... All entries are judged for their creati\ity, originality and production values. Interactive entries are judged from the

internet for their creativity, concept, execution, functionality, interactivity and overall impact. Score sheets are faxed back to our office tor tabulation. Even the judges don't know who the v\ inners are. Only the Jury Chairmen and our staff do." The measures of advertising creativity discussed thus far are "post-hoc" measures: they ha\e been used to evaluate the creati\ ity of commercials that ha\'e already featured in campaigns and have been seen by their target audiences in order to reward outstanding creati\e performance or to fulfill the needs of academic researchers. Many practitioners pre- or posttest commercials, but this practice is by no means universal, although there is evidence that it is increasingly common. Of 112 agencies and advertisers surveyed, over 85 percent of agencies claimed to evaluate copy ideas before producing a rough commercial, avvv 97 percent evaluated the rough version, and 90 percent evaluated the finished commercial (Belch and Belch, 2U01). Howe\er, this testing is usually concerned with effectiveness, comprehension, recall, acceptability, or for effect on corporate image. There is evidence linking recall to creativity (e.g., Bogart, Tolley, and Orenstein, 1970; Gibson, 1996), but there is little indication that practitioners employ any formalized systems or techniques specifically for the direct measurement of advertising creativity. Instead, it is likely that winning creative solutions are recognized as such by the creative teams themselves, using the "Aha!" factor (Parlies, 1975), and are then "sold" by them to the account management team. Ultimately the client decides on the basis of an agency's work whether that agency is sufficiently creative to be retained (White and Smith, 2001), but it is surely i'l the agency's interest to have an objective method of predicting this judgment.

June 2 0 0 4 JOUHOHL OF flOUEFtTISlOG B E S E H 1 9 5

DEFINITION AND MEASUREMENT OF CREATIVITY

ENCOURAGING AND ENHANCING CREATIVITY

One inhibitor of creativity is f e a r . . . . Fear largeiy results from the degree of risk perceived. This includes the risk of failure, ridicule, and the exposure of limitations.

I Vople cniploved in a creative cipacity perform better under certain conditions, and many researchers (e.g., Amabile, 1998; Anderson, 1992, Cummings and Oldhnm, 1997; Nickerson, 1999) hii\e consequently devoted effort to establish how creativity may be encouraged and enhanced. The generation of advertising concepts that fulfill ihe requirements of the client brief and tbe account nianiij;ement team is a complex process, invoK ing the consideration of a large number of factors and decisions. Davies (2000) suggested that anything that can be done to reduce the complexity is worthy of consideration and recommended the use of decision-support software. An analytical hierarchy process (AHP), for example, could be used as a j;roup decision support system toenhance tbe ad\ ertising creative brief. According to Da\ ies, an AHP can facilitate the creative prcKoss and encourage the generation of ideas, mainly by organizing, clarifying, and simplifying the decisions that need to be taken. Creatives may thus be freed to concentrate their efforts on the creative task at handAmabile (1998) listed six aspects of managerial practice thai affect creativity. These are: challenge, freedom, resources, organizational support, supervisory encouragement, and work-group features. Among the "resources" that could be made available, the most important are lime and money. Others often cited as essential for creativity include the amount and quality of workspace. Although Amabile felt this was overstated, the workplace, relationships with super\i.sors and colleagues, agency philosophies, and the nature of assigned tasks all have a significant impact on creativity (e.g., Scott and Bruce, 1994; West and Eord, 2001). One inhibitor of creativity is fear (Nickerson, 1999). Research has shown, for example, that fear is the main reason why children may be

reluctant to express their ideas to others (Freeman, 1983). Eear largely results from the degree of risk perceixed. This includes the risk of lailuru, ridicule, and the exposure of limitations. There is no reason to believe that this is any different for adults, ond people who are more susceptible to pressure to conform have indeed been found to be less creati\e (Crutchfield, 19(i2). The positi\e relationship between risk-taking and creative achievement in advertising is now established (ElMurad, 20t12), and younger, unmarried, male creatives without dependents have been found to have both a higher propensity toward risk and higher levels of creativity (El-Murad, 2t)l)2). Managers should encourage employeesespecially those that do not fit this profileto take creative risks by providing their staff with a conduci\'0 work environment and "surrounding them by a context that nurtures their creative potential" (Cummings and Oldham, 1997, p. 35). This includes a stKial en\ ironment at work that will encourage positive interactions (Brower, 2000). The work environment can easily be changed to cater to the needs of creative people, and this, by having a positive effect on intrinsic moti\ ation, can thus hc^\e an immediate L'ffect oti performance (Amabile, 1983, 1998). Supervisors should be supportive and noncontrolling (Cummings and Oldham, 1997) and show creative staff "sympathetic understanding" while at the same time giving specific, agreed guidelines and clear boundaries that staff understand and appreciate (Fletcher, 1990). These guidelines and boundaries are im-

port.int, as, witht>iit them, the inti-liectual indcpendiMice that is essential for creati\ity can become a complete disregard for authority: a "willingness to be unconventional" can become a "compulsion to be nonconformist for the sake of nonconformity" and a "willingness to take reasonable risks" can become "an irrational disregard for possible consequences of actions" (Nickerson, 1999). Within these boundaries, however, staff should be given the maximum possible flexibility and freedom to create, "for this delicate little plant, aside from stimulation, stands mainly in need of freedom" (Einstein, 1946, p. 7). The notion of working in teams to encourage and enhance creativity, both by mutual stimulation and by the provision of feedback, is well documented (e.g., Brower, 2000; King and Anderson, 1990; Sethi, Smith, and Park, 21)01). Amabile (1998) stressed the importance of the design of these teams, so that they are mutually supportive, yet have a diversity of perspectives and backgrounds. This "diversity" brings added scope for additional combinations or associations. Leo Burnett was the first to realize the importance of teams in the context of advertising, when be established the concept of creative teams in his agency, matching and pairing copywriters with art directors (Rothenberg, 1998), Anderson (1992) believed that tincreati\'e people ctrc constrained by their belief in a series of myths about creativity, including that it is "too big to handle" or that it is only for geniuses (see also Johar, Holbrook, and Stem, 2001). In a similar

1 9 6 JOyBflBL Df flOUERTISlim RESEflflCtl June 2 0 0 4

DEFINITION AND MEASUREMENT OF CREATIVITY

vein, Sternberg (2000), rather surprisingly, and in apparent contradiction of many creativity researchers, posited that people are creative not because of any virtue, innate ability, or circumstance, but because they ch(x>se to be. He, like Golann (1963) before him, argued that creativity is the result of an attitude or set of attitudes, but went on to say that people can simply decide to adopt these attitudes if they do not already share them. He suggested 10 "decisiiHis" that people could take in order to become creative. His paper was pragmatic and primarily concerned with the identificatiitn and de\ elopment of creative giftedness in children but has considerable relevance to advertising creatives. The 10 "decisions" are (Sternberg, 2000): 7. Td rcdtfine problem'-^: to attempt fo see them in ti different wni/ to other people. 1. T[) leuru to nnali/zc iind criticize their own ideas, ^ince nobodi/ lias anii/ yivi^ ideas. 3. To sell their kieas: il is naive to assume that good creative ideas sell them<:elvei: 4. To recognize that knowledge is a doubleedged sword: it is not possible to be creative 'with insufficient knowledge, but too much knowledge can hinder crcaliviti/. 5. To have the courage to oi^ercome obstaclfs, io face opposition, since truly creatizv ideas are always likely to be opposed. 6. To take risks, and not be tempted to offer standard, safe solutions. 7. To be willing to grow, and not rest on their one good creative idea. 8. To believe in themsehvs, because there will often be times when nobodu else beliei'cs in them. 9. To learn to tolerate ambiguiti/. because ueu> ideas are not ahcai/s successful. U). Finalh/, since research has show)i thai people are at their wost creative when thcu are doing something theif love, peoinilialhi

ple should find out what then love to do. tnid do it. Most of these points will be familiar Ut people involved with creating and researching advertising. The fourth point, for example, will be familiar to observers of the debate on testing, while the tenth may suggest that creatives should special'i7x\ perhaps in particular product areas or client groups.
SUMMARY

basis of their perceived creativity, this is somewhat surprising. Taken as a whole, the evidence on encouraging and eiihancing creativity underscores the inhibiting effects of self-doubt, fear of risk taking, and fear of opposition and criticism. All of these can be aggravated by an inappropriate working environment but can be rectified by appropriate changes and investments, while indi\'iduals can be encouraged to have a more positive attitude toward creative risktaking.

The balance of evidence supports the view that there is still considerable interest in creativity or the science of "creatology" as it is becoming known. In terms of definition, the evidence suggests that advertising creativit)' involves the conceptualization and production of an object from new or existing components in a novel way that is also relevant to the task in hand. Developing such an object may involve some form of switching between primary and secondary cognitive modes in a defix-used way, but the use of asstKiation is likely to be central to the process. The process of advertising creativity is, in most respects, identical to the process of creativity in the arts. It is clear that psychometric methods are still widely used to measure individual creativity whereas appiied and practitioner research tends toward the use of expert opinion in some form (be that senior ad\ertising creatives, ad\ertising academics, their students, or members of the advertiser's target audience). As such, the norms of advertising practitioner creativity measurement are significantly different to tht>se used by other social scientists. Practitioner measurement, however, is largely confined to annual awards ceremonies: there is little evidence of creativity measurement as part of the process of de\'eloping advertising. Given th.il clients select and retain agencies on the
, The Social Pf^i/chobgy of Creativiti/. New REFERENCES
DOUGLAS WEST (Ph.D.) is professor of marketing at Westminster Business School, University of Westminster. London. His articles have appeared in many publications, including the European Journal of Marketing, the Internationa/ Jaurrial of Advenismg. the Internatlor)al Marketing Review, the Journal ol Advertising, the Journal of Advertising Research, the Journal of Creative Behavior, the Journai of Forecasting, and the Journal of Marketing Management. EL-MURAD (DBA) IS chair of marketing and business strategy al Westminster Business School. University of Westminster. London, He teaches advanced marketing practice and strategic marketing to both undergraduate and MBA students. His research interests are currently focused on the relationship between risk attitude and advertising creativity. Prior to joining the Universtty. he had extensive international marketing experience at a senior level with several brand-name multinationals.

A\i,.\Bii F, T. M, "The Sdci.il Psychology of Cre.iH\ity: A Consensutil A^isessment Technique,"

journal of Personality and Social P^^iicholog}/ 43, 5

(1982): 997-1013.

York: Springe r-Vt-rla^, 1983.

June 2 0 0 4 JOUflllfiL OF [IDllERTlSinG RESEHRCH 1 9 7

DEFINITION AND MEASUREMENT OF CREATIVITY

. "How tu Kill Creativity." Hannird Business Review. 76, S (1^98): 7h-H7.

, L. "Keep Listening to That Wee, Small Voice." In Readin^!^ in Ai/t'crf/s/'iiy tiiui i''iviiioliiiii Stnitc\;u, Arnold M. Barban and C. H. Sandage,

DL

BONO, F . Litnvi

Thinking far Manngenienl.

New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971.

ANDERSON, ]. "Weirder than Fiction: The Reality and Myths of Creativity," Acadcfin/ of Managcmmt Execulilfe 6, 4 (1992): 40-47.

eds. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin, 1968.

. S/.v Thinking- //,f(s. Boston, MA: Little, Brown, 1985.

BuzzELL, R. D. "Predicting Short-'Ierni C in Market Share as a Function of Advertising . Serious Creativitxi: Using the Power ofLatt'ral Thinking to Create Ncii' Idcaa. New York: Harper Collins, 1992,

ANDRiorouLOs, C. "Dt'terminants ot Orj;onls<itional Creativity: A Literature Review." Munagentt'iil Dvcit^itm 39, 10 (2001): 834-40.

Strateg)'." jotmml of Mnrkctiufi Re^'anh 1, 3 (19W): 27-31.

CALLAHAN, C . M . "The Assessment of Creativily." In Htindlm)k of Gifted Ediicalion, N. ColanBAILIN, S. "Can Therf He Creativity witliuut Creation?" hiWrduiiii^e t.S, 2 119^): 13-22. gelo and G. A. Davis, eds. Hoston, MA: Allvn & Bacon, 1991.

Dt:vvi\(,, K., .ind <.,. BAMvh. "Attention Deployment and Non-Verbal Fluency." journal of Perlih/ ijiid Sodii! P^mhohgu 17 {lt7n: 214-lS.

DIM ION, 1. "The Triumph of Creativit)' over BARRON, \r. Crcativitif ami Personal Fnvihni. New York: Vnn Nostrand, 1968. L'HANC. L, Lind M. A. RiiNfo. "Problem Tinding Skills as Components in the Creative t'rucess." Persoualitff and Imiiz'idiial DiffcreiKn- 14 -. Creutitv Person ami Crealiiv Process. New York: Holt, Kineh.irt, & \-Vinstoii, I^OT. CRGPLEY, A . J. "[defining and Measuring CreBELCH, G . E., and M. A. BELCH. Advfrtisiiif; ami

Coninuinication." joiirmil of Adivrtising

4, 3

(1992): 155-62.

DYKIS, M . , .ind A. MctliiiF. "A Comparative Study ol Attcniinn.il Strategies in Schizophrenics and Highly Creative Normal Subjects." Bri>ish joiirmil of Pi^ychiatrii 12S (1976): ^0-56.

ativity: Are Creativity Tests Worth Using?" Roqvr Review 23, 2 (2000): 72-80.

Promotion, an liitcgratai Marketing Civniminicatians Perspectivf (International ed,). New York: irwin McGraw-Hill, 1998.

EINSTEIN, A. "Autobiographical Notes," In Vie CRUTCHFIEI 1), K. S. "Conformity and Creative Thinking." In Conti'iuporari/ Af^proticfwii lo CreLibranj of Living Philosoplier^. VIII. Allvrt Einstein: Philosopher Scienlisl, P. Schilpp, ed. and translator. New York: Open Court Publi^hing Company, 1946.

, tind

. Advertising and Proviotion, an

iltivi- Viiukinn, H. Gruber, G. Terell, and M. Wertheimer, eds. New York: Atherton, 1962.

lijtet^ratcd Markctin;^ Comiiiiiiiicatums Pcrspvcthc (5th Ed., Internationai Ld.J. New York: irwin McGraw-Hill, 2001.

CsEKSZENTMiHALYi, M. "Society, Culture, and Person: A System.s View of Creativity." In Hif

FL-MURAD, |. "The Relationship Between Risk Attitude iind Advertising Creativity." DBA thesis, Henley Management College/Brunei University, 2002.

BELL, J. A. "Creativity, TV Commerciai Popularity, and Ad\ertising Expenditures." hitrrnatiomil lournal of Aiivcrlisina U, 2 (1992); 165-73.

Nilturf of Crfativit\f, Sternberg, R., ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.

. "Implications of a Systems Perspective for the Study of Creativity." In Hajuihook of BLAIK, M . H . '.\W Empirical Invstij;ation of Advertising Wearin and Wearout." foiirmil of Aihertisiii;^ Rr^nirch 28, 6 (198S): 4S-'^0. CuMMiNCS, A., and G. OLIJHAM. "Managing BocART, L., S, ToLLtY, and F. ORENSTEIN. "What One Little Ad Can Do." lunrnal of Adv Rvseanh 10, 4 (1970): 3-13. Work Contexts for the High Potential Fmployee." California Mam^entciii (1997): 22-38. Ra'iiii' 40, 1 Crvativitt/, R. Sternberg, ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.

, and

. C. WEST. "Risk and Cre-

ativity in Advertising." loiiriuil of Marketing Maniigcment 19, 5-6 (2003): 657-73.

EwiNt;, MICHAEL T , |. JL'LIE NAPOLI, and DOUG-

LAS C. WtsT. "Creative Personalities, Processes, and Agency Philosophies: Implications for Global Advertisers." Cn-atii'ily Research Jmtrtial 13, 2(2001): 161-70.

BROWFR, R. "TO Reach a Star: The Creativity of Vincent van Cogh." High Ability Studies i l , 2 (2000): 179-205.

DAVII-:S, M . "Using an Analytical Hierarchy Process in Advertising Creativity." Crcotivitii mui Innovation Management 9, 2 (2000): UX)-108.

EYSENCK, H . "Creativity and PerMinalitN': A Theoretical Perspective." I'sychologicai Enquiry 4, 3 (1993): 147-78.

198

L Of flOUERTISlOB RESERBCH June 2 0 0 4

DEFINITION AND MEASUREMENT OF CREATIVITY

FiNKi-:, K., 1. WAIU), and S. SMIIII. Craitivf

GUILFORD, J. P. "Creativity." Anu-ricau Psi/eiiologi^t 5 (1450): 444-54-

INNAMORATO, G . "Creativit)' in tht? Development of Scientific Giftedness: Educational Implications." Roeper Rivirtv 21, 1 (1998): 54-60.

Cognition: Tlwory. Research, md Applicalion?. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1992.

. The Nature of Htunan luteUigence. New CiiiK, VV. "The Management of Croati\'ity." hilcrihitiouiit joimuil of Advertising 9, 1 (1990): 1-37.
, P. R. MERRiriELD, and R. C. WILSON.

York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.

ioiiAR, tdTA VENKATAKAMANI, MDRRIS 15. HOLBROOK, and BARBAKA B. STERN. "The Role of

Myth in Creative Advertising Design; Theory, Process and Outcome." journal of Aiivertising 30, 2 (2001): 1-25.

Unusual Uses Test. Orange, CA: Sheridan PsyFREEMAN, J. "Emotional Problem,-, of the Gifted Child." joiirmil of Child Psi/cJiologij ami Psi/chiiitry 24 (1983): 481-85.
KK R., and C. BENBOW. "Sex Differences

chological Services, 1958.

K, A., D. SLAYDEN, and S. J.

and laterali/atinn in Temporal Lobe Glucose

GI.:TZI-:LS, )., and P. JACKSON. Creativity and In-

"Real Worlds and Ivory Towers: A Survey of Top Creative Directors." journalism and Mass Comnninication Educator 51, Summer (1996): 63-74.

Metabolism During Mathematical Reasoning." DevelopniPiilal Ni'umps^/ehohgi/11 (1995): 4t)4-14.

teiiigence: Expioralion^ with Gifted Stiidentf-. New York: Wiley, 1962.

, B. SitGEL, C. TANC, L. A B E I , and M.

GIBSON, L. "What Cin One TV Hxposure Do?" jouriui! ofAiii'iTli:^ing Re^niixh 36, 2 (1496): 9-!7.

BucHSBAUM. "Intelligence and Changes in Regional Cerebral Glucose Metabolic Rate Following Learning." Intelligence 16 (1992): 415-26.

KHATENA, J. "Myth: Creativity is too Difficult to Measure!" Gifted Child Quarteriy 26 (1982): 21-23.

GOLANN, S. "Psychological Study of Creativity." Psychoiogkal Bulkiin 6L1 (i963): 54S-65.

Ki-y, M. "An Application ut Amabile's Consensual Assessment Technique for Rating the Creativity of Children's Musical Composi-

c;, N., and N, .AN[IERSON. "Innovation in

Working Groups." In innovation and Creativity, at Work, Michael A. West and James L. Farr, eds. New York: J. Wiley and Sons, 1990.

COUCH, H . "A Crt'ati\'ity Scale for the Adjective Check List." journal of i'er^oimlity iDid Social Psychology 37 (1979): n9S-140[^.

tions." journal af Research in Music Education 4.9., 3 (2001): 2.34-45.

KILLING, R. "Working Tools." In The Creative HiKscKMAN, E. C "Role-Based Models of AdProcess: A Si/inposhmi, B. Ghiselin, ed. Berkeley, CA: Universit\' of Californin Press, 1983 (first published in 19371,

. "Assessment ot Creative Potential in Psychology and the Development of a Creative Temperament Scale for the Cl'i." In Advances in P^\/cliological Measurement, Vol. H, 1. Rosen and P- McRevnoids, eds. New York: Plenum, 1992 [cited in Cropiey (2000)].

\'ertising Creation and Production." iournti! of Advertising 18, 4 (1989): 42-53.

R, D. "Measurement ot Creativity: Keview and Critique." Journal of Personality Assessment ^5. 5 (1981): 450-64.

KusLOW, S., S. L. SASSER, and E. F. RIORDAN.

"What is Creative to Whom and Why?" journal of Advertising Research 43 1 (2003): 96-110.

GROSS, I. "An Analytical Approach to the Creative Aspects of Advertising." Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Cleveland, Case Institutt- of TcchnoUjgy, 1967.

IChK, A., and M. FisimKiN. "The Prediction of Bi'haviora! Intentions in a Choice Situation."

Kov! R, A. J., S. M. Goi-DiJKRt";, and W. L. JAMES.

"Creativity vs. Effectiveness? An Integrating

jouriiol of Experunenta! S<hia! P'r-i/chology 5 (19h9). Classification for Advertising." journal of Advertising Research 35, 6 (1995): 29-40. -, and -, "The Prediction ol Behavior KRIS, K. I'si/chonnniiflic Exploriitioii-^ lu Art. New York: International Universities Press, 1^52.

. "The CriMtivL' A.'^pects of Advertising." Shun Mamigeniciit Review t4, 1 (1472): S3-109.

from Attitudinal and Norn\ati\e Variables." journai of Expcriuicnlal Soeia! I'si/chology h (1970).

GRUBEK, H . E., and D. IJ. WALLACH. "Under-

-, and

"Attitudes and Normative

LONDON INTERNATIONAL ADVERTISING AWARDS.

standing Unique Creative People at Work." In Hnndbook nfCn'atiz'iti/, R. [. Sternberg, ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.

Beliefs as Factors Influencing Behavioral. Intentions." journal of Experinieiitiil Sociai i^sydioiogy 31, 1 (1472)-

"About London international

Advertising

Awards." [URL: http://www.Haawards.com], accessed July 1998.

June 2 0 0 4 JOURflflL flF flOUEflTfSlflG RESEfiflflfi 1 9 9

DEFINITION AND MEASUREMENT OF CREATIVITY

, C. ). "Evolving Creative Minds: Stories and Mechanisms." In i-iandbook of Creativity, R. J. Sternberg, ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.

Innovation." Psyclwlojiical Builetiii 103, 1 (1988): 27-43.

Handbook of Creativity, R. ]. Sternberg, cd. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.

, M. A. MARKS, M . S. CONNELLEY, S. J. ZACCARO, and J. Y: JOHNSON. "Domain-based

, and M. A. RLJNCO. "The Death of Cre-

ativity Measurement Has Been Greatly Exaggerated: Current Issues, Recent Advances, and. Future Directions in Creativity Assessment." Rocper Review 21, 1 (1998): 36-40.

MACKINNON, D . "Personality and fhe Realization of Creative Potential." Aincriean Psychologist 20 (1963): 273-81.

Scoring of Divergent-thinking Tests: Validation Evidence in an Occupational Sample." Creativity Research journai U (1998): 151-63 Icited in Cropiey (20(X))l.

MARTINDALE, C . "Biological Bases of Crc.iti\ity." In Handbook of Creativity, R. J. Sternberg. ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. . "Understanding Intelligence, Gittedness MEDNICK, S. A. "The Associative Basis of fho Creative Process." Psychohgieal Revierv 69 (1962): 220-32. , and I. P. DAS. Cognitive Assessment SysMEEKER, M . The Structure of inteUect: Ils Interpretation und il^^es. Columbus, OH: Charles & Merriil, 1969. NiCKt:RSON, R. S. "Enhtincing Creativity." In Handbook of Creativity, R. Stemberg, ed. Cam, and R. MEEKER. Structure-of-lnteilect Learning Abilities Test: Evaluation, Leiuiership, and Creative Tliinidng. E! Segundo, CA: SC)l Institute, 1982.
O'CONNOR, G . C , T. K. WILLRMAIN, and J.

PoLiTZ, A. "Creati\eness and Imagination." jourNACLIERT, J. A . E'ssentials of CAS Assessment. New York: Wiley, 1999 [cited in Naglieri (2001)1.
REID, L.. K. KINC. and D. DELORME. "Top-

mil of Advertising; 4, .1 (1975): 11-14.

Level Creatives Look at Advertising Creativity Then and Now." journal of Advertising 27, 2 (1998): 1-16.

and Cre.iti\'ity Using the PASS Theory." Rocper Review 23, 3 (2001): 151-37.

, and H. ROTFELD. "Toward an Associative Model of Advertising Creativity." journal Of Advertising 5, 4 (1976): 24-29.

tem. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing, 1997 [cited in Naglieri (2001)].

RHODES, M . "Analysis of Creativity." Phi Delta Kappcn 42, 7 (1961): 305-10.

bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.

RossiTER, JOHN R., and LARRY PERCY. Advertis-

MACLACIILAN. "The Value of Competition .^mong Agencies in Developing Ad CamMENDELSOHN, G . A. "Associative ahd Attentional Processes in Creative Performance." journal of Personality 44 (1976): 341-69.
OGIIAY, DAVID. Co)ifes?ions of an Advertising Man.

ing Connnunications & Promotion Management. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1997.

paigns: Revisiting Cress's ModeL" jonrnnl of Advertising 25, 1 (1996): 51-62. RoTHENBERCi, R. "Burnett over Bernbach? 'Time' Doesn't Get Advertising Genius." Advertising Ag, July 12. 1998.

MiCHELL, P. C. N., and H. CATAQUET. "Establishing the Causes of Disaffection in AgencyClient Relations." jaurnai of Advertising Research 32, 2 (1992):

London: Longman, 1964.

RUNCO, M . A., and S. M. OKUDA. "The Instruc-

. Ogilvi/ on Advertif^ing. London: Orbis, 1983.

tional Enhancement of the Flexibility and Originality Scores of Divergent Thinking Tests." Applied Cognitive Psychology 5 (199U: 4 3 5 ^ 1 .

Y, S. E. Creative Advertising: Tlieon/ & Practice (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHaU, 1991.

OSBORN, A. F. Applied liiiaginalion (rev. ed.). New York: Scribner's, 1953. and S. O. SAKAMOTO. "Experimental Studies of Creativity." in Handbook of Creativity, R. J. PARNES, S. J. "Aha!" ln Perspectives in Crcntii'Sternberg, ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1999.

, and B. G. VAN DKN BERCH. "Advertising

ity, 1. A. Taylor and |, VV, Cietzels, eds. Chicago, 11.: Aldine, 1975 [cited in White and Smith

Creatives Look at Creativity." lournal of Creative Behaviour 18, 3 (1984): 162-74.

SCOTT, S. G . , and R. A. BRUCE. "Determinants

of Innox'ative Behavior: A Path Mode! of Indi), M. D., and S. B. GUSTAFSON. "CrePLLICKER, ]. A., and J. S. REN/ULLI. "Psychomet-

vidual Innovation in the Workplace." Academy of ManageinciJt journal .37, 3 (1994): 580-607.

ativity Syndrome: integration. Application, and

ric Approaches to the Study of Creativity." tn

2 0 0 JOURnfIL OF flDUEHTISfne RESEHRCII June 2 0 0 4

DEFINITION AND MEASUREMENT OF CREATIVITY

t, R., D.C. SMEIH, and C. W. PARK. "Cross-

afivity, R. |. Sternberg, ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.

WEISBERC, R. Creativitii. Beifonii the Myth of Ge-

FunctH)nal Pniduct Development Teams, Creativity, and the Inmnativeness of Consumer Pnxlucts." journai ofMarkihig Ri-search 38 (2001 J: 73-83. J, D. K. "Crt'ativity fmm a Historiometric Perspective." Jn Handbooif af Crt-iJti'oit\f,

nius. New York: Freeman, 1993.

, L. A. O'HAKA, AND T. I. LUBART. "Cre-

WEST, DOUC.L.\S C. "Cross-National Creative

ativity 3s Investment." California Management Personalities, PrcKesses and Agency PhilosoReview 40, 1 (1947): H-2L
phies." journal of Advertising Research 33,5 (1993): 53-62.

!\- 1. Sternberg, ed. Cambridge: Cambridge Universitv Press, 1999.

SMITH, S., M. WARD, and R. FINKI:, YDS. The f~ . f~ ... . I ,- L 1 1.*^ C rrntin' Lognitioti Approach. C .imhritfge, MA: MIT Pres.s, 1995.

STONE. G. "Recall, Liking, and Creativity in TV

Commercials: A New Approach." journal of Advertising Research 4lJ, 3 (2000): 7-19.

. "Restricted Creativity: Advertising Agency Work Practices in the US. Canada and
the UK." lonrnni of CreatiiV Behavior 27. 3 (1994): 200-13.

kiRRANCE, E. P. Guidin'i Creative Talent. Ennle'^ '^ ^''""^ '^^^"'" ^^' ' ' ^ ' " ' i ' ^ ^ ' - ' " ' ' ^ " ' l ^ ^ -

WEST, DOUGLAS C . "36(r of Creative Risk: An Agency Tlieory Perspective." journal of Adivr-

STERNBirkc, R. ]. "Identifying and Developing Creati\ e Giftedness." KctV'crKcf'jfir 23, 2(201X1): 60-65-

Torrance Tests of Creative Thinkitig. Lexington. MA: Personnel Press, 1974 |cited in Plucker and Ren^-ulli

tisiiig Rfst'oreh 39, 1 (1999): 39-SO.

, and JOHN FORD, "Advertising Agency , and |. V. DAVIDSON, IDS, The Nature of iy/j., Cambridge, MA: Mil Press, IWS. Philosophies and Employee Risk Taking." jour-

. "Predicting the Creativity of Elementary School Children (1958-1980)and the Teacher Who Made a Difference." Gifled Child Quan-rty 25 (1981): 55-62.

nal of Adivrtising 30, I (2001): 77-91.

, and y. I. LLHAIU, "An liu'estment Theory ot Creati\-ity and Its Development." iliiinan Development .34 (19^1): ]~M.

, ALAN MICIAK, ami ADRIAN SAKCKANT.

"Advertiser Risk-Orientation and the Opinions and Practices of Advertising Managers."

Internationa! lournal of Advertising 18 (1999):

UNSWORTH, K. "Unpacking Creati\-ity." Academy of Management Review 26, 2 (2001): 289-97.

-, and

. "Buy Low and Sell High: An VAN DEN BERCH, B., L. REID, and G. SCHORIN.

51-71.

ln\estment Approach to Creativity." Current Directions in Pstjchologicat Science I, 1 (1942): WHITE, A., and B. SMITH. "Assessing Advertis-

ing Creati\ it\' Using the Creative Pniduct Seate?" journal of Advertising 12, 4 (1983): 46-49. mantic Scale." journal of Adivrtising Research 41,
, and . Defying the Cn^rcrf: Cultivatiiig WACKMAN. DANIEL B., C. T. SALMON, and C. 6(2001): 27-34.

"How Many Creative Alternatives to Gener-

Creativity in a Cultiin' of Confiirmity. New York: I-ree Press. 1995.

SALMON. "Developing an Advertising AgencyClient Relationship." foiirtial of Advertising Research 26, ft (1986/1987): 21-2B,

WHITE, G. E. "Creati\ity: The X Factor in Advertising Theory." journal of Advertising 1, 1 (1972): 28-32.

, and

. "Investing in Creativity.'

American Pst/ehohgist 31 (1996): 677-88.

WAI i.ACn, M., and N. KIX^AN. "Modes of ThinkZINKHAN, G . "Creafi\-ity in Advertising, Creati\'ity in the lournal of Advertising," journal if Advertising 22, 2 (1993): 1-3.

, and

. "The Concept of Creativity:

ing in Young Children: A Study of the Creativ ityIntelligence Distinction." New >brk: Wiley, 1965.

Prospects anci Paradigms." In tliiiiilbook of Cre-

June 2 0 0 4 JOURdllL Of HDUEBIISfOG flESEflRClt 2 0 1