Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts

Introduction.
This issue of Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts begins with articles that highlight past American Psychological Association (APA) conferences. We continue with a fine set of articles. Finally, in this issue, we include the Call for the next editorial team of PACA . It’s a rewarding scholarly activity and we hope that appropriately qualified individuals or teams consider applying. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)
The APA 2009 Division 10 debate: Are the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking still relevant in the 21st century?
The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT) are measures of creative potential and interpreted as domain-general measures of creativity. They have been translated into over 35 languages and are the most researched measures of creativity. Research has found that the TTCT have the highest predictive validity among many measures of creativity. Torrance conducted longitudinal studies with the TTCT over 40 years and the results indicated that the scores on the TTCT predict children's later creative achievement better than IQ scores. The TTCT are the most referenced and widely used measures of creativity and are especially useful for identifying gifted and talented students. The TTCT are used for admission to gifted programs and have broadened the acceptance of students into such programs, including increasing the numbers of minority students and of students who may not show their creative potential in any other standardized manner. Therefore, the importance of the TTCT in the 21st century will continue in the identification of highly creative students and in the development of creative thinking skills in them. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)
How divergent thinking tests mislead us: Are the Torrance Tests still relevant in the 21st century? The Division 10 debate.
The Torrance Tests are essentially divergent thinking tests based on Guilford’s model, and they are very widely used as creativity tests. Although the Torrance Tests have lost some of the edge they had quarter of a century ago, when Torrance and Presbury (1984) reported that the Torrance Tests had been used in three quarters of all recently published studies of creativity, they nonetheless remain an important force, although perhaps more in schools than in research. I believe available evidence suggests that the Torrance Tests may, at best, be measuring divergent thinking ability in certain narrow domains, but people are interpreting Torrance Test scores as measures of creativity more generally, and the validation evidence just doesn’t support such interpretations. This means that the ways the Torrance Tests are being used causes false research outcomes and unreliable and invalid decisions in such arenas as admission to gifted–talented programs. And I am also arguing that using an “unusual uses of a tin can” kind of test as our measure of creativity may be warping a lot of people’s ideas about creativity in ways that I think are potentially harmful. I fear that the equation of creativity with wild and crazy ideas—or with long lists of such ideas—tends to lead us away from a mature understanding of creativity. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)
Proven reliability and validity of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT).
Comments on an article by Baer (see record 2011-26328-002). Baer challenged the validity of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT), but the evidence that Baer cited is largely irrelevant, having—at best—a tangential connection to the TTCT. The TTCT should not be criticized with evidence derived from other divergent thinking tests. The author gives multiple examples proving the validity of the TTCT. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)
Four (more) arguments against the Torrance Tests.
Responds to comments by Kim (see record 2011-26328-003) on the author's original article (see record 2011-26328-002). The current author remarks that he has space to counter only a few of Kim’s arguments. In this short response, he focuses on four ideas: (a) the use of multiple measures of giftedness, (b) interpretation of Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT) subscale scores, (c) what polymaths mean for domain specificity theory, and (d) the need for TTCT proponents to be consistent in their standards. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)
The digitized self in the Internet age.
Receiving the Arnheim Award has provided an occasion to reflect on experiences with teachers at various stages of my career. We examined phenomena in emotion and aesthetics from diverse perspectives and this led me to consider the assumptions underlying our theories, methods, and professional communication. These studies explored how feelings and emotions are shaped by encounters with traditional artifacts (e.g., paintings, literature) and modern media products (e.g., films, advertisements, industrial design objects). I have come to value the complementary use of quantitative and qualitative methods to achieve a clearer understanding of the aesthetic experience. Recently, I have begun to focus on relations between the self and involvement with mass media products such as Facebook . I propose that four facets of self; actual versus ideal, public versus private, engaged versus detached and implicit versus explicit can be related to four motives for engaging in Internet activity; connection, validation, compensation, and exploration. While the Internet fosters Arnheim's notion of “cultural transportation” and McLuhan's “global village,” users should be knowledgeable about the structure of mass media, learn to carefully manage self disclosures and be vigilant regarding surreptitious manipulation through targeted advertising. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)
“Standardized minds” or individuality? Admissions tests and creativity revisited.
College Admissions Tests are designed to predict academic achievement but they are often criticized as being biased in favor of selecting students more inclined to superficial learning than creativity. The empirical literature hints that such tests might predict creative outcomes (although not as well achievement), but few studies have considered actual creative products. With a sample of 492 college students, I tested whether scores on the ACT exam were predictive of three measures of creativity obtained several years after the admission test was taken. Openness to experience was used as an additional predictor; academic measures served as comparative outcomes. Self-reported creative accomplishments, judge-rated creative drawings, and judge-rated richness of autobiographical photo essays were all significantly related to the ACT-composite score even when personality was controlled. Reminiscent of the threshold effect, the benefits of increasing cognitive ability seem to taper off at one sigma above the ACT sample mean. These results imply that college admissions tests may indeed predict creative products and socially beneficial creative activities and not merely course grades; thus their use for admissions should not, on average, penalize the most creative students. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)
Answering the unexpected questions: Exploring the relationship between students' creative self-efficacy and teacher ratings of creativity.
Two studies explored the relationship between elementary students' creative self-efficacy (CSE) beliefs (i.e., self-judgments of creative ability) and teachers' ratings of students' creativity. In Study 1, elementary students' (N = 595) CSE beliefs in science predicted teachers' ratings of students' creative expression in science, accounting for a significant, but small (3.4%), proportion of variation in teachers' ratings. Results of Study 1 also indicate that students' CSE beliefs tended to decline by grade level and teachers tended to rate females and White students as more creative. In Study 2, elementary students' (N = 306) CSE beliefs in science and math predicted teachers' ratings of creative expression in math and science, again accounting for a significant, but small (2.1% in science; 4.2% in math), proportion of variation in teachers' ratings. Also similar to Study 1, results indicate students' CSE beliefs declined by grade level. Results of Study 2 indicate that students tended to underestimate their creative ability and tended to differentiate between creative ability in science and math (whereas their teachers did not). Implications for creativity research are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)
Dynamic evaluation of high- and low-creativity drawings by artist and nonartist raters: Replication and methodological extension.
How do creators evaluate works-in-progress to guide them to successful completion? To study this process, artist and nonartist raters assessed in-progress states of high- and low-quality emerging artworks. States were presented sequentially, as a methodological variant to previous research using random order presentation. Results for nonartists replicated earlier findings of a reliably shallower slope for the quality trajectories of high-quality drawings, as defined by artists. Results for artists were more complex; ratings of artists with different aesthetic judgment criteria were examined separately. Artists not valuing abstraction showed mostly similar results as nonartist raters. Inconsistent with earlier findings, abstraction-valuing showed no difference in high- versus low-quality drawings' trajectory slopes. Analyses of time-quality correlations for individual raters suggest abstraction-valuing artists gave lower ratings to later stages of low-quality drawings, producing null effects for slope. This implies that although sequential presentation may be more ecologically valid, random presentation yields results which allow better inferences as to the differences in the creative process. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)
From past to future art: The creative impact of Picasso's 1935 Minotauromachy on his 1937 Guernica.
This paper reports a quantitative analysis of how Picasso's, 1935 etching Minotauromachy influenced the creative process observed in the sketches for his 1937 painting Guernica. The experimental stimuli consisted of 39 images obtained from the original set of Guernica sketches. We included only the four figural elements that appear in both the etching and throughout the Guernica sketches (the bull/minotaur head, the horse, the woman holding a lamp, and the ladder climb). Seven independent raters judged the similarity of the sketches to the images extracted from the 1935 etching. The average similarity rating gave us the progress score for each sketch when compared to the etching. Using the data from Simonton (2007a), we also included in our discussion the sketch progress scores toward Guernica. We found evidence for the nonmonotonicity of the creative process (characterized by numerous backtrackings), as opposed to monotonic improvement. This suggests that although Picasso used some of the figural elements found in his earlier work, he did not merely improve them through a monotonic “honing” process, but rather explored a variety of possibilities, as is characteristic of a blind-variation process. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)
What is it about Picasso? Infants' categorical and discriminatory abilities in the visual arts.
Research on infants' early development of aesthetic perception has focused on their ability to discriminate and evaluate auditory stimuli such as musical intervals or faces differing along their level of attractiveness. However, infants' discriminatory and evaluative responses in the domain of the visual arts have, as of today, not been examined. Artistic paintings are complex visual stimuli. Multiple cues such as color, style of brushing, common subjects, and others must be considered to discriminate and evaluate paintings from different artists. The authors examined infants' visual attention to works of 2 painters, namely Picasso and Monet. Results suggest that infants discriminate and categorize different paintings but that they display a spontaneous preference for paintings by Picasso. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)
How do experts and novices differ? Relation versus attribute and thinking versus feeling in language use.
How do experts and novices differ? This has been a question of fundamental importance in the field of cognitive science. Most research has focused on the analysis of indirect indicators following paradigms of experimental psychology. In our study, we adopted a more exploratory method to understand expertise at a mechanistic level. We analyzed 109 experts' and 105 novices' language use and found common and stable aspects among experts as well as differences between experts and novices. The most important characteristic of the language use of experts is its strong tendency toward relations between attributes and organization, as opposed to reliance on attributes themselves and emotion. Other noteworthy distinctions in language between experts and novices are also discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)
Review of Your creative brain: Seven steps to maximize imagination, productivity, and innovation in your life.
Reviews the book, Your Creative Brain: Seven Steps to Maximize Imagination, Productivity, and Innovation in Your Life by Shelley Carson (see record 2010-21982-000). In this wonderfully written book, Shelley Carson argues that the riddle of creativity can be solved by peering into its neurological origins. Specifically, neural function (rather than structure) holds the key to creative cognition. In turn, stimulating creativity becomes a matter of engaging in behaviors that target its very source—brain function. The reviewer comments that if you are looking for a book that will provide you with concrete recommendations for flexing your creative muscle, this is the book for you. The reviewer further remarks that along the way you'll learn about the neuroscience of creativity, and the amazing ability of the human brain to construct solutions to difficult problems under less than ideal conditions. It will also remind you of Richard Feynman’s idea that demystifying nature need not reduce any of its splendor. In fact, it can have the opposite effect. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)

Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts - Vol 5, Iss 4