How is creativity assessed across multiple products? What parameters influence the audience's overall impression of an artist's total body of creative work? This study examines this question in the domain of poetry, as poetry “gatekeepers” rated a series of five poems (all written by the same poet). The central question was what factors impacted the overall ratings of these poems; specifically, the following components were evaluated: average performance (i.e., typical work), maximum performance (i.e., best work), minimum performance (i.e., worst work), variability of performance (i.e., consistency), first performance, and last performance. The average, best, worst, and last poem in each set positively predicted the overall quality of the set. Variability (e.g., the standard deviation) did not make a significant prediction, suggesting that a body of artistic work may not be judged by the consistency of the set. These results suggest an overall stronger effect for ratings of individual items than for consistency when judging a set of creative works. Implications for aesthetic judgment are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AmabileT. M. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 997–1013.
2.
AmabileT. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York: Springer-Verlag.
3.
AmabileT. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity.Boulder, CO: Westview.
4.
BaerJ. (1993). Creativity and divergent thinking: A task-specific approach.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
5.
BaerJ. (1998). The case for domain specificity in creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 11, 173–177.
6.
BaerJ.KaufmanJ. C., & GentileC. A. (2004). Extension of the consensual assessment technique to nonparallel creative products. Creativity Research Journal, 16(1), 113–117.
7.
BennettW. (1980). Providing for posterity. Harvard Magazine, 82(3), 13–16.
8.
BerlyneD. E. (1971). Aesthetics and psychobiology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
9.
Christensen-SzalanskiJ. J. (1984). Discount functions and the measurement of patients' values: Women's decisions during childbirth, Medical Decision Making, 4, 47–58.
10.
CsikszentmihalyiM. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York: HarperCollins.
11.
CupchikG. C. (1992). From perception to production: A multilevel analysis of the aesthetic process. In CupchikG. C. & LaszloJ. (Eds.), Emerging visions of the aesthetic process (pp. 83–99). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12.
DavelaarE. J.HaarmannH. J.Goshen-GottsteinY., & UsherM. (2006). Semantic similarity dissociates short-from long-term recency effects: Testing a neurocomputational model of list memory. Memory & Cognition, 24, 323–334.
13.
DiGirolamoG. J., & HintzmanD. L. (1997). First impressions are lasting impressions: A primacy effect in memory for repetitions. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4, 121–124.
14.
DuemerJ. (1991). William Wordsworth. In GreenfieldJ. R. (Ed.), Dictionary of literary biography, Volume 107: British romantic prose writers, 1789-1832, First series.Farmington Hills, MI: The Gale Group.
15.
EpsteinR. (1985). The nature of publications in academic vitae. American Psychologist, 40, 240–241.
16.
FeistG. J. (1999). The influence of personality on artistic and scientific creativity. In SternbergR. J. (Ed.), Handbook of human creativity (pp. 273–296). New York: Cambridge University Press.
17.
GentileC. A., & KaufmanJ. C. (2002a, January). Creative writing: “Sacred cow” or scorable construct? ETS Workshop Series. Educational Testing Service, Princeton, New Jersey.
18.
GentileC. A., & KaufmanJ. C. (2002b, March). Re-analysis of creative writing data from the 1998 NAEP Classroom Writing Study. Invited presentation to the National Assessment of Educational Progress Special Interest Group at the American Education Research Association, New Orleans, Louisiana.
19.
GilbertD. (2007). Stumbling on happiness. London, UK: HarperPerennial.
20.
HayesS. C. (1983). When more is less: Quantity versus quality of publications in the evaluation of academic vitae. American Psychologist, 38, 1398–1400.
21.
HennesseyB. A., & AmabileT. M. (1999). Consensual assessment. In RuncoM. & PritzkerS. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (pp. 347–359). New York: Academic Press.
22.
HolmbergD., & HolmesJ. G. (1987). Reconstruction of relationship memories: A mental models approach. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 13, 228–238.
23.
KahnemanD.FredricksonB. L.SchreiberC. A., & RedelmeierA. (1993). When more pain is preferred to less: Adding a better ending, Psychological Science, 4, 401–405.
24.
KaufmanJ. C.BaerJ.ColeJ. C., & SextonJ. D. (in press). A comparison of expert and nonexpert raters using the Consensual Assessment Technique. Creativity Research Journal.
25.
KaufmanJ. C.GentileC. A., & BaerJ. (2005). Do gifted student writers and creative writing experts rate creativity the same way?Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 260–265.
26.
KaufmanJ. C.LeeJ.BaerJ., & LeeS. (in press). Captions, consistency, creativity, and the consensual assessment technique: New evidence of validity. Thinking Skills and Creativity.
27.
KaufmanS. B., & KaufmanJ. C. (2007). Ten years to expertise, ten more to greatness: An investigation of modern writers. Journal of Creative Behavior, 41, 114–124.
28.
KiplingR.1899. The white man's burden.London: Printed for private circulation.
29.
LederH.BelkeB.OeberstA., & AugustinD. (2004). A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments. British Journal of Psychology, 95, 489–508.
30.
MillerJ. K.WestermanD. L., & LloydM. E. (2004). Are first impressions lasting impressions? An exploration of the generality of the primacy effect in memory for repetitions. Memory & Cognition, 32, 1305–1315.
31.
MorewedgeC. K.GilbertD. T., & WilsonT. D. (2005). The least likely of times: How memory for past events biases the prediction of future events. Psychological Science, 16, 626–630.
32.
MurdockB. B.Jr. (1967). Recent developments in short-term memory. British Journal of Psychology, 58, 421–433.
33.
SimontonD. K. (1977). Creative productivity, age, and stress: A biographical time-series analysis of 10 classical composers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 791–804.
34.
SimontonD. K. (1985). Quality, quantity, and age: The careers of ten distinguished psychologists. International Journal of Aging & Human Development, 21, 241–254.
35.
SimontonD. K. (1997). Creative productivity: A predictive and explanatory model of career trajectories and landmarks. Psychological Review, 104, 66–89.
36.
SimontonD. K. (2000). Creative development as acquired expertise: Theoretical issues and an empirical test. Developmental Review, 20, 283–318.
37.
SimontonD. K. (2003). Expertise, competence, and creative ability. In SternbergR. J. & GrigorenkoE. L. (Eds.), The psychology of abilities, competencies, and expertise (pp. 213–240). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
38.
SmithL. F., & SmithJ. K. (2006). The nature and growth of aesthetic fluency. In LocherP.MartindaleC., & DorfmanL. (Eds.), New directions in aesthetics, creativity, and the arts (pp. 47–58). Amityville, NY: Baywood.
