Post on 26-Jan-2023
Are Creativity and Intelligence Related?
For many years, the notion of creativity was
indistinguishable from views of intelligence.
Sir Francis Galton (1887), one of the first to examine
intelligence in-depth, based his observation of intellectual
differences on grades (marks) earned by men at Cambridge or on
the “eminence” men attained in a chosen profession. He suggested
that intelligence was inherited and measurable with certain
tests.
In the early twentieth century, Alfred Binet developed a
test designed to measure intelligence by performance on a series
of tasks. Lewis Terman, of Stanford University, later
standardized Binet’s original test with American participants,
and the Stanford-Binet became the standard measure of
intelligence in the United States.
However, over time, traditional notions of intelligence
began to change, albeit slowly. In 1950, J.P. Guilford
questioned the idea of intelligence as scores on an IQ test. In
his presidential address to the American Psychological
Association (APA), Guilford (1950) expressed doubt that
intelligence tests could adequately measure creativity,
suggesting that “creativity and creative productivity extend well
beyond the domain of intelligence” (p. 445). Instead, he
proposed that intelligence be considered a construct of multiple
factors, including creativity. Furthermore, he differentiated
between creative potential and creative production, linking
creative production to personality traits such as motivation.
“Whether or not the individual who has the requisite [creative]
abilities will actually produce results of a creative nature will
depend upon his motivational and temperamental traits” (p. 444).
He further urged fellow psychologists to research the creative
potential found in children and ways to promote that potential
(Guilford, 1950).
Differences in intelligence and creativity were noted by
Getzels and Jackson (1962) in a study of students from a private
school in Chicago. Although the average IQ score was well above
average, students with the highest IQ scores fell below the top
20% in their total scores of divergent thinking skills, and
students with the highest divergent thinking scores were below
the top 20% in IQ scores. There appeared to be no overlap in the
highest IQ or divergent thinking scores. Achievement scores for
the groups were comparable, despite a 23 point difference in IQ
score between the high IQ/lower divergent thinking and the lower
IQ/high divergent thinking groups.
Wallach and Kogan (1965) expressed doubts about the
methodology used by previous researchers, including Getzels and
Jackson, to distinguish intelligence from creativity. Arguing
that measures of creativity had more in common with measures of
intelligence than with each other, Wallach and Kogan (1965)
suggested that the administration of timed paper-and-pencil tests
in large groups might not accurately reflect creative potential.
They found that presenting divergent thinking tasks as play, in a
one-on-one setting with an adult who had previously established a
relationship with the child, resulted in creativity scores that
were not only highly correlated with each other but independent
of intelligence scores.
The distinction between creativity and intelligence was
again delineated by Joseph Renzulli (1978) in his Three-Ring
conception of giftedness. He proposed a set of three
intersecting traits: “above-average though not necessarily
superior general intellectual ability, task commitment, and
creativity” (p. 181). According to Renzulli (1978), interaction
of the three components is necessary for creative accomplishment,
with all components contributing equally.
Contemporary Definitions of Creativity
More contemporary definitions of creativity tend to focus on
originality and usefulness. Amabile (1987) defines creativity as
“a novel and appropriate solution [product or response] to an
open-ended task” (p. 227). Csikszentmihalyi and Wolfe (2005)
view creativity as “an idea or product that is original, valued,
and implemented” (p. 81). Prabhu, Sutton and Sauser (2008) offer
a similar definition: “the generation of novel, original, and
unique ideas concerning procedures and processes that can used at
work and are appropriate and significant to the problem or
opportunity presented” (p. 54). Torrance (1970) defines
creativity as traits “which lead us to respond constructively to
new situations, rather than merely to adapt or adjust…The true
value of creativity is to be found in daily living, not just in
the creation of new products” (p. 15). Creative needs include
curiosity, the need to meet challenge and attempt difficult
tasks, the need to become fully absorbed in a task, and the need
for individuality.
Other researchers have examined creativity from a
theoretical standpoint. Piirto (1992) identified a number of
creative theorists, grouping them into categories based upon
theories of creativity: philosophical, such as Csikszentmihalyi,
Simonton, and Sternberg; psychological, such as Guilford,
Getzels, and Renzulli; psychoanalytic, such as Jung and Freud,
and domain-specific, such as Hofstadter.
Sternberg and Lubart (1992) suggest that creativity has been
studied from two perspectives: internal (the process of an
individual) and external (the interaction of an individual and
context). Creativity is found along a continuum: when it is less
contextualized, or internal, the focus is on the psychometric, or
personality and process; when it is more contextualized, or
external, the focus is on the social-psychological (Amabile),
case-study (Gardner, Feldman), or historiometric (Simonton).
There are six personal traits essential for creativity:
intelligence, knowledge, thinking styles, personality attributes,
motivation, and environment. To be most effective, motivation
should be task-oriented instead of goal-oriented, and intrinsic
instead of extrinsic (Sternberg & Lubart, 1992). Amabile (1983)
also lists three personal, or internal, components required for
creativity: domain-relevant skills (factual knowledge and
technical skills within the domain), creativity-relevant skills
(conditional and procedural knowledge), and task motivation
(attitudes and self-perception). People are most creative when
they are motivated by a passionate interest (Amabile, 1987).
The influence of culture and context on creativity is
emphasized by Csikszentmihalyi and Wolfe (2005), who point out
that the cognitive process of creativity is “one that takes place
in a context of previous cultural and social achievements, and is
inseparable from them…Creativity is not produced by single
individuals, but by a social system making judgments about
individuals’ products” (p. 81-82). For example, creativity tests
require participants to respond to divergent thinking tasks with
products that are rated by experts on certain aspects of
creativity (originality, fluency, flexibility). Since there is
no objective measure of creativity, the product must be judged
according to “the effect it is able to produce in others who are
exposed to it” (p. 82).
Sternberg and Lubart (1992) also acknowledge the importance
of context in the creative process: “To be creative is to invest
one’s abilities and efforts in ideas that are novel and of high
quality, and to be creative, one must, like any good investor,
‘buy low and sell high’” (p. 2). In other words, one must create
an idea or product that is out of the ordinary, but with the
potential to be widely accepted. As others adopt and adapt idea,
the original creator moves on to new ideas (Sternberg & Lubart,
1992). A similar idea is proposed by Csikszentmihalyi & Wolfe
(2005), who view creativity from a systems perspective;
“variables external to the individual must be taken into account
if one wishes to explain why, when, and where new products arise
from and become established in a culture” (p. 82).
Cognitive, conative, and environmental factors interact to
affect creativity, according to Lubart, Georgsdottir, and
Besançon (2009). Cognitive factors include intellect, thinking
(divergent, logical and analogical), and knowledge, including the
“accumulated facts, theories, and personalized expertise that
concern various content domains, but also an understanding of
task-relevant constraints and other implicit parameters that play
a role in problem solving” (p. 44). Conative factors include
personality and affective traits: risk-taking, openness,
tolerance of ambiguity, motivation, curiosity, and self-
expression. Environmental factors include the physical and
social environment, such as family and school, in particular a
warm, supportive environment that encourages exploration, and
socio-cultural influences, such as activities, and models.
What Is Motivation and How Does It Influence Creativity?
Motivation is a personal drive to accomplish, “the process
of instigating and sustaining goal-directed behavior” (Schunk, p.
453). Motivational orientation is both a trait and a state,
according to Amabile (1987). As a trait, motivation encompasses
one’s innate like or dislike of certain activities, due to
temperament, personality, and previous experiences; people tend
to be more creative on things they enjoy. As a state, motivation
can be intrinsic or extrinsic. Traits tend to be relatively
enduring, while states are influenced more by social environment.
Intrinsic motivation is “the motivation to work on something
primarily for its own sake, because it is enjoyable, satisfying,
challenging, or otherwise captivating” (Amabile, 1987, p. 224),
whereas extrinsic motivation is an external reward, “the
motivation to work on something primarily because it is a means
to an end” (Amabile, 1987, p. 224).
Motivation is extremely important in creativity because it
drives an individual to persist at problem solving. “Creative
potential is not fulfilled unless the individual (and his or her
social support) is motivated to do so, and creative solutions are
not found unless the individual is motivated to apply his or her
skills” (Runco, 2005, p. 609). Prabhu et al. (2008) emphasize
the importance of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation as mediators
of the relationship between creativity and three personality
traits: openness of experience, self-efficacy, and perseverance.
Effects of Reward on Motivation
Reward affects certain personal traits differently. The
effect of reward on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation is
complicated and may vary under different circumstances, depending
on one’s perception. An intrinsically motivated task can become
extrinsically motivated if it is perceived as simply a means to
obtain a reward or another end, or if it is presented as work
rather than play (Amabile, Hennessey, & Grossman, 1986).
In a meta-analysis of 96 experimental studies measuring the
effect of reward on intrinsic motivation, Cameron and Pierce
(1994) found no consistent evidence that reward decreases
intrinsic motivation; in fact, verbal praise appeared to increase
intrinsic motivation. The only negative effect of reward was a
slight decrease in time spent on a task after reward was given
for participation. Eisenberger and Cameron (1996) found similar
results in a meta-analysis of almost 100 studies from 1971-1991,
controlled for effect and sample size.
However, other researchers have pointed out that motivation
may be influenced by conditions other than reward. Social-
cognitive factors such as competence and self-determination can
increase or decrease motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985). “Events
that increase perception of competence or self-determination are
assumed to enhance intrinsic motivation. Events that decrease
perception of competence or self-determination will diminish
intrinsic motivation” (Eisenberger & Cameron, 1996, p. 1155).
Intrinsic motivation may be reduced if a reward is given for
participation in a task (performance-independent reward) or
completion of a task (completion-dependent reward), as these
types of rewards lessen self-determination. However, a reward
given for meeting a predetermined standard of quality (quality-
dependent reward) does not necessarily reduce intrinsic
motivation; although self-determination may decrease, the
perception of competence may increase at the same time.
Deci and Ryan (2008) suggest that the amount of motivation
is less important than the type. Self-determination theory (SDT)
distinguishes between two types of motivation, autonomous and
controlled. “Autonomous motivation involves behaving with a full
sense of volition and choice, whereas controlled motivation
involves behaving with the experience of pressure and demand
toward specific outcomes that comes from forces perceived to be
external to the self” (Deci & Ryan, 2008, p. 14). SDT springs
from the psychological needs of competence, autonomy, and
relating to others: when these needs are met, intrinsic
motivation increases. Rewards or social climates may make people
feel controlled and pressured, which lowers autonomy, thus
reducing intrinsic motivation. In a supportive or informative
climate, autonomy increases, as does intrinsic motivation (Deci &
Ryan, 2008).
An integral part of SDT is organismic integration, a
continuum of extrinsic motivation according to how fully it is
integrated. The lowest level of integration is introjection: with
an extrinsic constraint, people feel controlled and do not accept
ownership of the behavior. In identification, people accept the
responsibility of behavior as their own, even with an extrinsic
constraint. Integration occurs when “extrinsically motivated
behavior becomes truly autonomous or self-determined” (Deci &
Ryan, 2008, p. 16). Integration differs from intrinsic
motivation in the inherent enjoyment of and interest in the
activity. How well an individual integrates the extrinsic
constraint may determine the eventual effect of that constraint.
Effect of Reward on Creativity
There seems to be an inherent disagreement between
behaviorally- and cognitively-oriented researchers on whether or
not reward negatively influences creativity. Behaviorists
perceive human behavior as a response to a stimulus (in this
case, a reward). Therefore, the enticement of a reward should
promote positive motivation and creativity (Eisenberger & Selbst,
1994). On the other hand, cognitive researchers point to the
impact of social factors, in addition to reward, on creativity
(Amabile, 1987). It is also possible that reward affects
different types of problems in different ways. Amabile (1985)
distinguishes between two different kinds of problems:
algorithmic, or straightforward problems, with a single solution,
such as arithmetic problems; and heuristic, or open-ended
problems, with a number of solutions or no solution at all.
Because of the differences in cognitive processing demands,
reward may have a different impact on algorithmic problems than
heuristic problems. Both behaviorists and social-cognitive
theorists suggest that this is indeed what happens, although they
tend to analyze tasks differently (Amabile, 1987; Eisenberger and
Selbst, 1994).
Eisenberger and Selbst (1994) suggest that cognitive
researchers who have found that reward decreases creativity
“generally reward a low level of divergent thought, whereas
behaviorists generally reward a high degree of divergent thought”
(p. 1118). In a study examining the effects of reward on
divergent thinking of young children, Eisenberger and Selbst
(1994) found that a small reward for low divergent thinking
produced a decrease in creativity, while a small reward for high
divergent thinking produced an increase in creativity. A large
reward eliminated differences in creativity between the two
groups. A second study evaluated the creativity of children’s
drawings, based on proximal or distal reward for high divergent
thinking. Children under the large distal reward who were
previously rewarded for a high degree of divergent thinking
produced more creative drawings than those who had been rewarded
for a low degree of divergent thinking.
Eisenberger and Shanock (2003) also found that “the effects
of reward on creativity depend on the recipient’s construal of
the task” (p. 127). Creativity increased when creative
performance was rewarded and decreased when conventional
performance was rewarded. “Reward for high performance increased
intrinsic task interest via heightened perceived self-
determination and competence, leading to greater creative
performance” (p. 126). In other words, subjects learn what
conditions are rewarded and utilize this knowledge in future
activities. Eisenberger and Shanock (2003) believe that the
increase in intrinsic motivation and creativity can be attributed
to increased self-determination and perceived competence,
consistent with self-determination theory (SDT).
Similar results were found by Eisenberger and Cameron
(1996), who measured time spent on task after a reward. They
found that verbal rewards increased time, whereas the expectation
of tangible rewards (specifically, performance-independent
tangible rewards) decreased time. Verbal rewards enhanced
attitudes and quality-dependent rewards increased interest, but
other tangible rewards had no effect. The researchers questioned
whether the decrease in intrinsic motivation found in some
previous studies was a “temporary satiation or a negative
contrast effect” (p. 1160), since most involved a single pairing
of activity and reward.
These conclusions have been rejected by some cognitive-
oriented researchers, who suggest that in general, intrinsic
motivation enhances creativity and extrinsic motivation inhibits
creativity (Amabile, 1987). Motivation and creativity are
influenced not only by reward, but by social factors. These
social factors do not occur in isolation, but in combination; the
expectation of reward, self-esteem, and intrinsic motivation
interact in an individual’s perception of the effect of a reward.
This perception can be positive or negative.
Prabhu et al. (2008) found support for the negative
influence of extrinsic motivation on creativity. Based on self-
reporting inventories of 124 college students, researchers found
that self-efficacy, intrinsic motivation, and openness to
experience were strongly and positively related to creativity.
Intrinsic motivation was also related to perseverance; however,
perseverance did not appear to be correlated to creativity.
Extrinsic motivation was negatively related to creativity, as was
perseverance under high levels of extrinsic motivation, but not
at low or mean levels.
In response to Eisenberger and Cameron’s 1996 study,
Hennessey and Amabile (1998) countered that a simple behavior
(time spent on task) rather than creative performance was used to
measure the effect of reward. They argued that it is difficult
to apply proposed explanations such as satiation and negative
contrast to a task that is performed for a reward, when there is
no prior experience with the task. “The most appropriate
interpretation of Eisenberger and Cameron’s results is that they
demonstrate increased divergent thinking under the expectation of
reward for divergent thinking” (Hennessey & Amabile, 1998, p.
675).
Extrinsic constraints lower immediate as well as future
performance and interest, according to Amabile et al. (1986).
Three studies examined the effects of performing a task for
reward as opposed to offering a reward as part of the actual
activity. Participants ranged in age from early elementary
students to adult women, and the various tasks included verbal,
artistic, and problem-solving skills. Reward did not appear to
inhibit creativity when it was offered as part of the activity,
but did appear to inhibit creativity when viewed as means to an
end. This finding demonstrated a negative effect of reward
across different populations, rewards, and creativity tasks.
Social Factors Affecting Motivation and Creativity
Amabile (1987) identified six social factors that have the
potential to strongly impact creativity: evaluation,
surveillance, reward, competition, restriction of choice, and
time pressures. The expectation of evaluation appears to have
negative on creativity for adults and older students; it is not
clear if the effect is the same for younger students. In one
study by Amabile (1987) and colleagues, elementary students
received feedback on an art task. In addition, some of the
students were told that their performance would determine the
experimenter’s job status, thereby raising the salience of the
external constraint. Although there were no clear differences
between groups, the performance of all groups was rated as less
creative than that of a control group. Prior evaluation may
impact creativity of young children more than the expectation of
external evaluation.
Surveillance may also decrease creativity, whether or not
there is an expectation of evaluation. Amabile (1987) found that
subjects who believed they were being observed were less creative
than those who were not aware of being observed. Those who were
told they were being observed and that their product would be
evaluated after completion produced the least creative products
and reported higher levels of anxiety and distraction (Amabile,
1987).
Reward itself does not appear as influential as an
individual’s perception of the task as means to an extrinsic end.
In studies conducted by Amabile (1987), creativity appears to be
highest among those in a no-choice reward condition, where reward
is given regardless of performance on an assigned task; this
orientation does not appear to increase extrinsic motivation.
“Contracting to receive a salient reward for doing some activity,
seeing oneself as doing the activity in order to obtain the
reward, can decrease intrinsic motivation in the work itself and
undermine the creativity of the outcome” (p. 242).
Competition may enhance creativity for some age groups while
inhibiting creativity for others. Amabile (1987) conducted a
study of business managers, educators, and researchers in
problem-solving. Those in non-competitive situations performed
more creatively and more accurately. The same results were found
in a study of elementary students. Amabile (1987) suggests,
however, that competition among teenagers may actually enhance
creativity.
Free choice and “a sense of internal control and freedom”
(Amabile, 1987, p. 244) appear to have a positive effect on
creativity. Requiring workers or students to follow a certain
path or recipe lowers creativity and motivation.
Amabile (1987) believes that time pressure may have more
effect on creativity than any other constraint, although studies
have not been conducted to show this. Deadlines may decrease
creativity, while sufficient time tends to increase creativity.
The perception of competence and choice of behavior also
influences one’s self-perception of motivation (Lepper, Greene, &
Nisbett, 1973). When we see someone performing a task, we infer
that they are doing it without external reward if we don’t see
reasons to attribute the performance to a reward. We tend to
perceive our own actions and behaviors as driven by the same
motivation or lack thereof. Intrinsic motivation for creativity
may stem from observing others perform a similar task without
reward. The observer thus perceives that his or her own
performance of the task is also intrinsically motivated.
Amabile (1985) conducted a study designed to specifically
manipulate intrinsic/extrinsic motivation. Writers answered
questionnaires before composing a poem. Some participants
received questionnaires designed to elicit an intrinsic
orientation; others received questionnaires designed to elicit an
extrinsic orientation; members of a control group received no
questionnaire. The creativity of the poems of the control and
intrinsic-orientation groups were judged to be comparable in
creativity, however, the extrinsic group’s poems were less
creative.
The perception of competence and choice of behavior also
influences one’s self-perception of motivation. When we see
someone performing a task, we infer that they are doing it
without external reward if we don’t see reasons to attribute the
performance to a reward. We tend to perceive our own actions and
behaviors as driven by the same motivation or lack thereof.
Intrinsic motivation for creativity may stem from observing
others perform a similar task without reward; the observer thus
perceives that his or her own performance of the task is also
intrinsically motivated. The expectation of reward may cause the
individual to attribute the behavior to the reward and discount
intrinsic motivation (Eisenberger & Cameron, 1996; Lepper, et
al., 1973).
Overjustification and Immunization
“Overjustification” occurs when a person’s intrinsic
motivation to perform a task is undermined by the inducement to
engage in the task for an external reward. In this condition,
receipt of an unexpected reward after performing a task should
not inhibit creativity or motivation. Lepper et al. (1973)
demonstrated this effect using young children who were
intrinsically motivated to engage in a particular activity; some
were induced to engage in the activity for a reward, others were
asked engage in the same activity but were given the reward at
the end. Young students who were initially highly motivated to
utilize novel drawing materials were less motivated and less
creative if they expected a reward after drawing. The
educational setting of this study was particularly appropriate
because students are often asked to engage in intrinsically
motivating activities with the promise of reward (grades, gold
stars, tokens, etc.). These rewards may actually decrease the
intrinsic motivation that children initially have in learning if
they attribute their behaviors to the reward instead of their own
motivation.
Hennessey, Amabile, and Martinage (1989) investigated
whether overjustification could be counteracted with training on
the value of intrinsic motivation. Although previous studies had
indicated that creativity generally decreases in a reward
condition, the researchers wanted to demonstrate that creativity
could be maintained when intrinsic motivation is maintained. One
hundred thirteen elementary students received training in
intrinsic motivation, or creativity, with a control group
receiving neither. Students in the intrinsic motivation training
group viewed a videotape showing two children talking with an
adult about their enjoyment of and interest in schoolwork, and
how they maintained that interest in learning even when a reward,
such as good grades or praise was offered. Students also
participated in directed discussion and follow-up exercises.
Children in the other groups also watched videotapes and
participated in discussions and
follow-up exercises. Half of the students in each group were
offered a reward for completing a storytelling task, and half
were presented the reward as one in a series of tasks.
Creativity of the resulting product was then assessed. Stories
by the students in the reward/intrinsic motivation group were
judged most creative, and those in the no-reward/intrinsic
motivation group appeared least creative. Students who received
intrinsic motivation training also scored significantly higher in
motivation than the control groups. Students who received
intrinsic motivation training appeared to perceive the reward as
adding to their motivation.
Puzzled by the low creativity scores of children in the no-
reward/intrinsic motivation group, Hennessey et al. (1989)
conducted a second study to assess personality variables of
initial motivation orientation and self-esteem. Creativity of
students in the reward/intrinsic motivation training group was
judged most creative, while that of no-reward/intrinsic
motivation and reward/control groups were comparable.
Interestingly, students who did not receive intrinsic motivation
training also made significant gains in motivation scores.
In an attempt to replicate studies indicating that training
can immunize students against the negative effects of reward on
creativity, Gerrard, Poteat, and Ironsmith (1996) utilized a
technique similar to that of Hennessey et al. (1989). After
training in intrinsic motivation, students created a collage
under a reward/no-reward condition. Since experts’ ratings did
not meet the standard for reliability, 21 teachers were asked to
rate the product. While experts rated the control training/no-
reward group most creative, teachers rated the intrinsic
motivation training/reward group most creative; both rated the
control training/reward group least creative.
This effect of students being immunized to reward is known
as motivational synergy, a condition where reward has “no impact
or even a positive impact on intrinsic motivation and creativity”
(Hennessey & Amabile, 1998, p. 675). Hennessey and Amabile
(1998) offered motivational synergy as an explanation for the
lack of inhibiting effect of reward in Eisenberger and Cameron’s
(1996) study.
It is clear from results of various studies that there is no
simple answer to the effect of reward on intrinsic motivation and
creativity. Nor is it clear what or how cognitive processes,
temperament and personality traits, and social factors influence
motivation. The interaction between intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation and creativity may be more complex than the linear
model proposed by most researchers. What is clear that more
research needs to be conducted in real-world settings to develop
our understanding of the link between motivation and creativity.
References
Amabile, T. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York:
Springer-Verlag.
Amabile, T. (1987). The motivation to be creative. In S.
Isaksen (Ed.), Frontiers of Creativity Research: Beyond the basics, 223-254.
Buffalo, NY: Bearly Limited.
Amabile, T.M., Hennessey, B.A., & Grossman, B.S. (1986). Social
influences on creativity: The effects of contracted-for
reward. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 14- 23.
Cameron, J., & Pierce, W.D. (1994). Reinforcement, reward, and
intrinsic motivation: A meta- analysis. A Review of Educational
Research, 64, 363-423.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. & Wolfe, R. (2005). Conceptions and
research approaches to creativity: Implications of a system
perspective approach to creativity in education. In K.Heller,
F. Mönks, R. Sternberg, & R. Subotnik (Eds.), International
handbook of giftedness and talent, 81-93. Oxford, UK: Elsevier
Science Ltd.
Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-
determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum Press.
Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (2008). Facilitating optimal motivation
and psychological well-being across life’s domains. Canadian
Psychology, 49, 14-23.
Eisenberger, R., & Cameron, J. (1996). Detrimental effects of
reward: Reality or myth? American Psychologist, 51, 1153-1166.
Eisenberger, R., & Selbst, M. (1994). Does reward increase or
decrease creativity? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 1116-
1127.
Eisenberger, R., & Shanock, L. (2003). Rewards, intrinsic
motivation, and creativity: A case study of conceptual and
methodological isolation. Creativity Research Journal, 15, 121- 130.
Galton, F. (1887). Hereditary Genius: An inquiry into its laws and
consequences. New York: D. Appleton & Co.
Gerrard, L.E., Poteat, G.M., & Ironsmith, M. (1996). Promoting
children’s creativity: Effects of competition, self-esteem, and
immunization. Creativity Research Journal, 9, 339-346.
Getzels, J.W., & Jackson, P.W. (1962). Creativity and intelligence. New
York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Guilford, J.P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444-454.
Hennessey, B.A., & Amabile, T. M. (1998). Reward, intrinsic
motivation, and creativity. American Psychologist, 53, 674-675.
Hennessey, B.A., Amabile, T.M., & Martinage, M. (1989).
Immunizing children against the negative effects of reward.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 14, 212-227.
Lepper, M.R., Greene, D., & Nisbett, R.E. (1973). Undermining
children’s intrinsic interest with extrinsic rewards: A test
of the “overjustification” hypothesis. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 28, 129-137.
Lubart, T., Georgsdottir, A., & Besançon, M. (2009). The nature
of creative giftedness and talent. In T. Balchin, B.
Hymer, & D. Matthews (Eds.) The Routledge international companion to gifted
education, 42-49. New York: Routledge.
Piirto, J. (1992). Understanding those who create. Dayton, OH:
University Psychology Press.
Prabhu, V., Sutton, C., & Sauser, W (2008). Creativity and
certain personality traits: Understanding the mediating effect
of intrinsic motivation. Creativity Research Journal, 20, 53-66.
Renzulli, J.S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Reexamining a
definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 60, 180-184, 261.
Runco, M.A. (2005). Motivation, competence, and creativity. In
A. Elliot and C. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and
motivation, 609-623. New York: Guilford Press.
Schunk, D.H. (2008). Learning theories: An educational perspective (5th ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Sternberg, R.J., & Lubart, T.I. (1992). Buy low and sell high:
An investment approach to creativity. Human Development, 34, 1-
31.
Taylor, I.A., & Getzels, J.W. (1975). Perspectives in creativity.
Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing Company.
Torrance, E.P. (1970). Encouraging creativity in the classroom. Dubuque,
IA: Wm. C. Brown Publishers.
Wallach, M.A., & Kogan, N. (1965). Modes of thinking in young children: A
study of the creativity-intelligence distinction. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, Inc.