Mapping Creativity: Creativity Measurements Network Analysis

Abstract

This article borrowed network analysis tools to discover how the construct formed by the set of all measures of creativity configures itself. To this end, using a variant of the meta-analytical method, a database was compiled simulating 42,381 responses to 974 variables centered on 64 creativity measures. Results, although preliminary, indicate the existence of a core dimension filled with variables that indicate novelty, which is surrounded by the paired dimensions of negative affect and social leadership, and high cognitive performance and positive affect. As for the measurement instruments, it was found that, although tests of divergent thinking, self-reported biographies, and composite scores are the most appropriate tools to gauge creativity itself, both attitude and personality inventories are best for diagnosing the different kinds of creators.

Acknowledgments

This article was supported by the Psychology Department of Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina and CAPES.

Notes

¹Preliminary calculations showed that the amount of time required for the proper administration of all the selected tests on the same subjects would reach the tens of hours, making impracticable the recruitment of volunteers, and also severely damaging ecological validity of any results.

²Technique analogous to meta-analysis in which effect sizes of primary research are used to recreate databases subject to agglutination, imputation and generalized further analysis. Unpublished research showed systematic deviations of retro-analysis results from traditional meta or mega-analytical procedures only when it was recreated sets of answers simulating samples of 100 subjects or less.

³Academic OneFile, Academic Search Premier, Academy of Operative Dentistry, Agri2000, Agricola, AGRIS, Alexander Street Press, American Academy of Audiology, American Academy of Periodontology, American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, AAAS, AACN, AAVLD, ACM, ACS, EconLit, AIP, AMA, APS, APA, ASBMB, American Society for Cell Biology, ASIP, ASN, American Society of Agronomy, ASA, ASCE, ASH, Annual Bulletin of Historical Literature, Annual Reviews, Applied Science and Technology Text, arXiv.org, APEL, ACM, Association of Clinical Scientists, ASTM International, Banco de Teses da Capes, AGROBASE, BRASPAT, BDPA, Bergell House, Bentham Science, Berkshire Encyclopedia of Extreme Sports, Biological Abstracts, BioOne, Booklist, BMJ, CAB Abstracts, CSA, Cambridge University Press, Cell Press Journals, Clase, Classical Reviews, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratoty, Ei, DII, Duke University Press, EBSCO, ESA, ERIC, ECCO, Emerald, Endocrine Society, FDI, Faseb, FSTA, Fuel and Energy Abstracts, Gale, GSA, Guilford Press, HLAS Online, HighWire, IndexPsi, Informs, INSPEC, IEEE Xplore, IOP, ICE, IPDL, INIS, Jama, JCR, JSTOR, Karger, Kirkus Reviews, LILAC, Maney Publishing, Mary Ann Liebert, MathSci, PubMed, Micromedex Healthcare Series, MLA, NCJRS, Nature, OSA, OECD, OVID, Oxford University, PloS One, Press, PePSIC, Philosopher's Index, Project MUSE, RILM, RePEc, RIPM, RCPSYCH, RSC, Sage, Science Direct, SciELO, SciFinder, Scitation, Scorpus, SpringerLink, Wiley InterScience e WorldSciNet.

⁴The full list of papers included in this study is too large to appear in the references, but it is, however, available for consultation with the first author of this article.