Creativity and Motivation

Gail Fiddyment

University of Georgia

EPSY 8220

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.