elmuradandwest

8/4/2019 ElmuradandWest

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elmuradandwest 1/14

The Definition and Measurement of

Creativity: What Do We Know?

JAAFAR EL-MURAD

Westminster Business

School

University of

Westminster

[email protected]

DOUGLAS C. WEST

Westminster Business

School

University of

Westminster

[email protected]

Creativity is arguably the most important element in advertising success. This article

reviews the trends in creativity research and asks (1) what do we know about

advertising creativity, (2) how can we measure it, and (3) how can we enhance and

encourage it? After tracking Its importance, this article examines how it is defined,

the nature of the theories underpinning it. and the various typologies suggested by

researchers. The Impact of issues such as the environment, management practice,

and myths on enhancing and encouraging advertising creativity are assessed. It is

argued that, to encourage and enhance creativity, managers should address the

effects of self-doubt, fear of risk taking, and fear of opposition and criticism.

CREATIVITY IS tit once the least scientific cispect of

adxertising <ind the must important (Reid, Kinj;,

and DeLorme, 1948). As with other forms of cre-

ativity, advertising creativity embraces both "orig-

inality" and "innovation" (Fletcher, 1990). To be

successful, it must have impact, quality, st\'le; <inei

relevance. Ideas must be new, unique, and rele-

vant to the product and to the target audience in

order to be useful as solutioas to marketing com-

munications problems. The resultant advertising

should pass such tests as the Universal Advertis-

ing Standards established by D'Arcy Masius Ben-

ton & Bowies (Belch and Belch, 1998). This is

because a "winning creative idea," one that stand.s

ou t from the crowd and is memorable, can ha\'e

enormous impact on sales, may influence the hir-

ing and firing of advertising agencies, and affect

their remuneration (see, for example, Blair, 1988;

Buzzell, 1964; Michell and Cataquet, 1992; Ros-

siter and Percy, 1997; Wackman, Salmon, and

Salmon, 1986/1987). However, despite the most

systematic and scientific approaches toward de-

veloping w inning creative ideas, the evidence sug-

gests it is a random process. This is because there

is a high degree of chance in coming up with a

winning creative idea, and random creativity istherefore pivotal (Gross, 1972; O'Connor, Wille-

main, and MacLachlan, 1996). Renowned aca-

demic researchers (e.g., Amabile, 1982; Runco and

Sakamoto, 1999) have found creativity tobe among

the most complex of human behaviors to de-

scribe. It has even been suggested that creativity

cannot be defined or measured (Callahan, 1991;

Khatena, 1982). CK'erall, it is timely to review the

trends in creative research and ask (1) what do we

know about advertising creativity, (2) how can we

measure it, and, (3) how can we enhance and

encoLirage it?

Before beginning the review, a briet outline of

terms is required. "A dvertising creativity" is used

for the process of producing and developing ad-

\'ertising ideas. It is acknowledged that treat-

ments and executions require creativity, indeedeven Ihe choice and use of media can be highly

creative, but for the purposes of this article the

emphasis is on the centra! creative idea.

The importance of creativity is acknowledged

by the scale and scope of the research activity

that has been conducted both to understand it

and to examine its application in diverse fields

Tiiese include, for example, art (e.g., Brower, 2000;

Kris, 1952), music (e.g.. Hickey, 2001), science

(e.g., Innamorato, 1998), education (e.g.. Free-ma n, 1983; Naglieri, 2(101), mana gem ent (e.g., De

1 8 8 J D O e flf lL O F f lO O f flT i S IO f i l E S E H R C H J u n e 2 0 0 4 DO!: 10.1017/S0021849904040097



DEFINITION AND MEASUREMENT OF CREATIVITY

1971; King and Anderson, IWl);

(e.g.. Gross, 1967, 1972; Hirsch man ,

Kendrick, Slayden, and Broyles, 1996;

Moriarty a nd Van den Bergh,

fold increase. For comp arison,

e 1). Having made these points,

oi

Creativity

90

Marketing

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

• ^ ^ Creat ive/creativ i ty in Ti tle

— — Mar keting in Title

Figure 1 Number of Art ic les with Tit les of "Creative" or

"Creativity" Compared with "Marketing" Cited in Proquest®

driopoulos (2(Xn), and Koslow,Sasser, andRiordan (2003).

WHAT DO WE KNOW?

Definitions

Creativity is often described in such terms

as "creative thinking" or "ability," "prob-

lem solving," "Imagination," or "innova-

tion." Many definitions involve an aspect

of problem solving, where the solution tothe problem requires insight (e.g., Simon-

ton, 1999; Stcrnberg and Davidson, 1995).

Most involve an aspect of "newness" or

"originality/' for example, "Greativity is

the ability to produce work that is novel

(i.e., original, unexpected)" (Stemberg and

Lubart, 1999). Originality is a required

but insufficient cimdition for creativity:

the work must also be of value; that is, it

should be "appropriate (i.e., useful, adap-

ti\'e concerning task constraints)" (Storn-

berg and Lubart, 1999, p. 3). This combi-nation of "novelty" and "appropriate-

ness" or "usefulness" has met with

widespread acceptance (e.g., Amabile, 1983;

Gruber and Wallace, 1999; Lumsden, 1999;

Martindale, 1999; Mumford and Gustafson,

1 9 8 8 ; Unsworth, 2001).

There are differences of opinion about the

role and importance of creativity in adver-

tising and marketing. Managers tend to

value "effectiveness," usually measured bychanges in awareness levels or in market

sales, whereas creative people generally

have a low regard for these kinds of mea-

sures (Kover, Goldberg, and James, 1993).

"Effective" advertising and "creative" ad-

\*ertising are the two concep ts that m ost fre-

quently em erge in the practitioner literature

( s e e , for example, the writings of Ogilvy,

1964,1983). Hirschm an (1989) also sho wed

that opinions tend to vary with the role of

the participant. Product managers and ac-

J u n e 2 0 0 4 J O U f K i e L O F H D l l E l lT I S I I l l l f iE S E f lU C H 1 8 9




Creativity in advertising differs from creativity in the

arts mainly in its purpose. Advertising creativity must

achieve objectives set by others—this is not usually the

case in the arts

count executives view ad\'ertising as a

means to achieve a specific objective, such

as to create awareness, desire, interest,

and/or action. This objective follows from

the client brief, itself a result of the mar-

keting plan, and is guided by research (Bell,

1992).Creative team s or individuals, on the

other hand, tended to see the advertise-

ment a s an opportimity to demonstrate their

ow n skills and aesthetic values and thereby

to prom ote tlieir careers (Hirschinan, 1989).

Perhaps it is the friction between these con-

flicting interests that results in great adver-

tising, but it has been found that creativity

is necessary for effectiveness and that it is

this that "pushes the message into view-e r s ' min ds" (Kover, Goldberg, and James,

1 9 9 5 , p. 29).

S<ime writers maintain that it is not cre-

ative unless it is useful (e.g., Amabile, 1 9 8 3 ;

Mumford and Gustafson, 1988), others view

creativity as an associative process (e.g.,

Mednick, 1962; Mendelsohn, 1976), with

some conten ding tha t creativity is not a uni-

tary concept at all. It has been argued that

there are different types of creativity: re-sponsive, expected, contributory, and pro-

acti\T (Unsworth, 2001), or that it consists

of a num ber of elements, each of which must

be present for creativity to take place (e.g.,

Csiks/entmihalyi, 1 9 8 8 ; Rhodes, 1961). Cre-

ativity in advertising differs from creatix^-

ity in the arts mainly in its purpose.

Advertising creativity must achieve objec-

tives set by others—this is not usually the

case in the arts. Success in the arts is

achieved when the creative products are

deemed "pleasing" in some way whereas

in advertising it is not sufficient to "please "

or always necessary to do so. To be suc-

cessful, creative advertising must first be

}u.'ticed and then have a specified effect on

the viewer. If it is not noticed, or if this ef-

fect is not achie'i'ed, the creative endea vor

is considered to have faiied.

Greativity involves new ness but this need

not be "new to the wo rld." Leo Burn ett tor

example, defined advertising creativity as

"the art of establishing new and meaning-

ful relationships between previously un-

related things in a manner that is relevant,

believable, and in good taste, but which

somehow presents the product in a freshnew light" (Burnett, 1968). Combining two

or more previously existing items, materi-

a l s , ideas, thoughts, concepts in a new way

can not only be creative, it is considered by

many to be the essence of creativity pro-

viding, "... the combinatorial leap which

is generally described as the hallmark of

creativity" (Mendelsohn, 1976, in Martin-

dale, 1999, p. 139). Reid, King, and De-

Lorme (1998, p. 3) define advertisingcreativity as "original and imaginative

thought designed to produce goal-directed

and problem-solving advertisements and

commercials," This definition, based onDil-

lion (1975), Moriarty (1991), Politz (1975),

and Reid and Rotfeld (1976), incorporates

four key elements: originality, imagina-

tion, goal-direction, and problem solving.

The authors m aintain that advertising cre-

ativity is a special form of creati\'ity and

differs from others in that "originality and

imagination must operate within a goal-

directed and problem-solving context"

(Reid, King, and DeLorme, 1 9 9 8 , p. 3 ) . Yet,

the concepts of "relevance" and "appropri-

ateness" of mainstream creativity research

also imply goal attainment and problem

solving, and are key features of other def-

initions of creativity (e.g., Amabile, 1983;

Martiridale, 1 9 9 9 ; Mumford and Gustafson,

1 9 8 8 ; Stemberg and Lubart, 1 9 9 9 ; Unsworth,

2001). Arch itects and designers of all kinds

"create" by applying their originality and

imagination to solve problems and achieve

goals that are s e t , usually, by others. A n art-

ist may paint for the purpose of self-

expression, but she or he may also do it forcritical recognition, fame, and fortune—

surely a "goal-directed" context. Hirsch-

man (1989) showed that advertising

creatives are motivated by similar consid-

erations, even though their ostensible pri-

mary motive is to achieve the advertising

objectives of their clients. White (1972, in

Zinkhan, 1993, p. 1) maintained that "the

process of creativity in advertising (or mar-

keting) is more or less identical with theprcKess of creativity in the arts and sciences."

To be successful, creative advertising must first be no

ticed and then have a specified effect on the viewer. If it

is not noticed, or if this effect is not achieved, the cre-

ative endeavor is considered to have failed .

1 9 0 J O y f in f l L D f ( l O U E R T IS I I l G R E S E f lR C H J u n e 2 0 0 4



DEFINITION AND MEASURE MENT OF CREATIVITY

advertising creativity is a special form of creativity

ode of dream-

of Kipling's (1937/1985) "Dae-

(Martindaie, 1 9 9 9 , p. 138). Cre-

secondary state is nec-

fied in the associative prima ry state.

focused attention than do those who are

more creative (Dewing and Battye, 1971;

Dykes and McGhie, 1976).

The theory of Associative Hierarchies

w'as first proposed by Mednick in 1962.

He stated that creativity is an associative

process in\olving, "the ability or ten-

dency which serves to bring otherwise

mutually remote ideas into contiguity [to]

facilitate a creative solution." Tliis leads

to a view of advertising creativity being

the process of associating previously un-

related facts in order that previously un-

realized relationships between them

become apparent (Reid and Rotteld, 1976).

If a person can only give a narrow rangeof answers in response to divergent tliink-

ing tests, he or she is said to have a

steep asstKiati\'e hierarchy. Conversely, a

wide range of answers indicates a fiat

associative hierarchy. According to Med-

nick (1962), creative individuals have flat

associative hierarchies, so are more able

to make original associations and thus

have more creative ideas. Reid and Rot-

feld (1976) were interested in establish-ing the role of the associative process

within advertising creativity. This had pre-

viously been assumed, primarily by ad-

vertising practitioners, based largely on

their own experience, and from studies

in the psychology literature on creativity.

Reid and Rotfeld (1976) were particu-

larly concerned with establishing the re-

lationship between associative ability,

attitude, and creative ability, and devel-

oped .1 conceptual model to show how

this might work in the advertising con-

text. In accordance with Mednick (1962)

and Mendel.sohn (1976), they pointed out

that advertising creativity was depen-

dent on the availability of a large num-

ber of facts with which, and from which,

to draw associations.

Of the three theories, the associative

has dominated the literature, but, as noted

by Martindak' (1999), the three theories

are virtually the same (albeit using quite

different vocabulary) as all support the

notion that associative ability is at the

core of creative ability. As a final point,

it is worth mentioning that Sternberg

and Lubart (1991, 1992, 1995, 1996) and

Sternberg, O'Hara, and Lubart (1997)

proposed an "Investment Theory of Cre-

ativity." Their proposition is based on con-

fluence theory, which suggests that creative

people are willing to "bin/ low nud sell

h i ^ h " in the realm of ideas. That is, they

pursue (invest in) ideas that are of little

interest to other people, or are unheard

of, but that they believe ha\'e "growth"

potential. When first p resented, these ideasmeet resistance. The creative person per-

sists in the face of this resistance and,

eventually, is able to "sell high." Creativ-

ity requires the confluence of six factors:

intellectual ability, knowledge, styles of

thinking, personality, motivation, and en-

vironment. Again the link to the idea of

associative ability can be made.

Typologies for Academic ResearchPlacing creativity within a typology for

measurement by advertising researchers

has presented a number of challenges.

First to be mentioned has to be Rhodes

(1961) who provided the first widely

quoted creative typology. He argued that

creativity does not occur in a vacuum,

instead it is demonstrated by (I) the cre-

ative person, who, by means of (2) the

creative process produces (3) the creati'oe

prodnd. in response to the macru/micn>

J u n e 2 0 0 4 J O U R f lR L O F H O y E R T I S I I l G R E S E R R C R 1 9 1



DEFINITION AND M EASU REM ENT OF CREATIVITY

nvironment in which he or ;?hc is lo-

ated, w hich he called (4) the creative press.

lucker and Renzulli (1999) fiirther sepa-

ate "press" into "environment" and "per-

uasion," but the distinctions are hard to

ty" may be gained by studyinj^ any of

hese four interlinked elements. The "cre-

person, or by

he creative praduct. The process may be

nferred by observing the persoti and the

in combination, whilst the pre^s

ay be studied for its effect on the other

Following from Rhodes, Sternberg and

dentified by Rhodes. The first of these

spoke of the "Daemon" that lives in

"When i/oiir Dnemoii is

(2) The Pragmatic ap-

press) conducive to divergent

conflict between the conscious reality and

subconscious drives. According to this

view, creative products are a socially ac-

ceptable way of expressing otherwise un-

acceptable unconscious wishes. Despite

the recent debunking of Freudian psy-

choiogy, the emphasis on the subcon-

scious is noteworthy and has relevance

to theories involving "primary process

cognition" (see Anderson, 1992; Martin-

dale, 1999). The Psychometric approach

(4) to studying creativity was developed

in response to Guilford's (1950) address

to the American Psychological Associa-

tion. In this address, he drew attention

to the lack of creativity research, which

he attributed in part to the paucity of

highly creative individuals that w ere avail-

able for study. He proposed instead that

"ordinary people" be studied, and their

creativity measured by the use of diver-

gent thinking tests, such as the Unusual

Uses Test, in which subjects think of as

many ns possible uses for an everyday

object, such as a brick (Sternberg and

Lubart, 1999). Subjects are scored for "flu-ency" (the number of uses suggested)

and originality. Although tests such as

these arc not strictly-speaking psychomet-

r i c , this is how they have come to be

known in the literature. Guilford and oth-

ers developed tests that enabled differen-

tiation between subjects on a standard

"creativity" scale. The psychometric ap-

proach to creativity is still very much in

use today, although often primarily toprovide support, in the form of quantifi-

cation, for other studies. Cognitive (5) is

concerned with understanding the cre-

ative process. Studies (e.g., Finke, Ward,

and Smith, 1992; Smith, Ward, and Finke,

1 9 9 5 ; Sternberg and Davidson, 1995) sug-

gest that there are two phases to creative

thought: the generative phase and the

exploratory phase. Social-Personality (6)

concerns the notion that creativity is more

prevalent in certain personality types and

in particular stxiocultural situations (Am-

abile, 1983; Barron, 1968, 1969; Fysenck,

1 9 9 3 ; Cough, 1979; MacKinnon, 1965).

Traits common to creative people in ad-

vertising include originality, intelligenceand vision in terms of recognizing big

ideas (Ew ing, Napo li, and West, 2001;

West, 1993, 1994), and the willingness to

take risks (El-Murad and West, 2003; West,

1 9 9 9 ; West, Miciak, and Sargeant, 1999).

As noted by Martindale (1999, p. 137),

"[creativity] requires the simultaneous

presence of a number of traits (e.g., intel-

ligence, perseverance, unconventionatity,

the ability to think in a particular man-

ner)." Finally, the Confluence approach (7)

is based on the idea that creativity can only

take place if several comptments are present.

These are motivation, domain-relevant

knowledge and abilities, and creativity-

relevant skills (Amabile, 1983). These

"creativity-rele\ant skills" include "(a) a

cognitive style that involves coping wifh

complexities and breaking on e's mental set

durin g problem solving; (b) knowledge of

heuristics for generating novel ideas, such

as trying a coimter-intuitive approach ; and

(c) a work style characterized by concen-

trated effort, an ability to set aside prob-

lems, and high energy" (Sternberg and

Lubart, 1999, p. 10).

MEASUREMENT

Hocevar (1981) reviewed the criteria and

methods for measuring creativity that were

then available and concluded that theycould be classified into 10 categories: tests

of divergent thinking, attitude and inter-

est inventories, personality inventories,

biographical inventories, teacher nom-

inations, peer nominations, supervisor rat-

ings, judgments of products, eminence,

and self-reported creative activities and

achievements. These can be further

grouped info the two broad categories of

psychometric tests (the first four) and ex-pert opinion (the remaining six).

9 2 J O y f i f l R L o r H D y E R T I S I I i G fl E S E f l f l C H J u n e 2 0 0 4




press) of creativity research (Plucker

\Q

ment (Cropiey, 2000). Aspects of some of

these "paper and pen" creativity tests

are vulnerable to other criticism, Med-

nick's (1962) "Remote Associates Test"

(llAT), for exa mple, was a self-completion

divergent-thinking creativity test in which

subjects were required tc> suggest a fourth

word that is in some way "remotely as-

sociated" with three given words. For

example:

1 . rat/blu e/co ttage . Solution: cheese

2 . railroad/girl/class. Solution: working

3 . surprise /line/birthd ay. Solution: party

4 . out/dog/cat. Solution: house

The RAT consists of 30 such questions to

be completed within 40 minutes. One

drawback of this test (at least for inter-

national users) is that it is culture-specific.

Another problem is that the test is verbal,

making no allowance for visual creativity,

whereas much of advertising creative is

nonverbal or has significant nonverbal

components. Zinkhan (1993) has argued

that creativity defies measurement. Aside

from the lack of a consensus about the

true workings of the creative process, his

logic was that because tests have predeter-

mined correct answers and originality is a

requirement of creativity, any respondent

giving "correct" answers in a creativity

test could not be creative. At a more spe-

cific Ie\'el, critics ha\'e also questioned

whether tests measure creative thinking

or even the ability to become creative(e.g., Weisberg, 1993), and the vulnerabil-

ity of the tests to administration, scoring,

and training effects. These include the

test conditions: for example, whether or

not the test is timed, whether it is pre-

sented m ore as a game than as a test, and

whether or not subjects are told to he

"creative." It has been shown that factors

such as these influence originality and

tluency scores (Chand and Runco, 1992;

Runco and Okuda, 1991).

Expert Opinion

There is a \'iew that the only reliable way

to identify creativity is by evaluating the

creative product (e.g., Bailin, 1984). As-

suming measurement scales could be de-

veloped, who should do the evaluation?

Reid and Rotfeld (1976) used an "Expert

Opinion Creative Ability Profile Scale" of

their own devising. This comprised ten

7-interval rating scales, designed to mea-

sure creative ability. Their subjects were

then rated on these 10 scales by expert

judges, in this case instructors of the Ad-

\'ertising Creative Strategy and Tactics

course. Inspired by Golann (1963), who

had found a correlation between attitude

and creative ability, the instrument used

was based on Icek and Fishbein's (1969,

1 9 7 0 , 1972) attitudinal model. It assumed

"that a person's attitude toward the act of

creating a commercial is a function of the

act's perceived consequences and its value

to the person" (Reid and Rotfeld, 1976,

p . 28). After analysis, the results were

found to support the centrality of associa-

tive ability to advertising creativity.

Amabile (1982) circumvented the prob-

lems of both the definition and the mea-

surement of creativity with w hat she called

the Consensual Assessment Technique

(CAT), by which experts assess the "cre-

ativity" of creative products using their

own indi\'idual criteria and their own def-

initions of creativity. A typical CAT item

for rating th e creativity of a pain ting read s:

"On a scale of 1 to 5, and using your ownsubjective definition of creativity, rate the

degree to which the painting is creative"

(Hickey, 2001, p. 235). It is simply not

possible, according to Amabile (1982), to

articulate clear, objective criteria for a cre-

ative product, whereas, if appropriate

judges independently agree that a given

product is creative, then it can and must

be accepted as such. By extension, the

person who created the product is alsocreative. While it is impossible to summa-

J u n e 2 0 0 4 J O y f lf ll lL O F H O y E f lT iS l flG R E S E flH C tl 1 9 3



DEFINITION ANDMEASUREMENT OFCREATIVITY

rize all of the creativity research. Table 1

shows the primary studies of creativity-

by author and measua used. The mea-

sures fall largely into the two broad cat-

egories of psychometric measurement and

expert opinii)n, with a few studies using a

combination of approaches.

Biometric

A third and quite separate approach to

creativity measurement is the Biometric

Approach, which in\'olves the measure-

ment of glucose metabolism in the brain

during creative activity. This is gaining

acceptance (Plucker and Renzulli, 1999)

because of developments in technology

(see, for example, Haior et M., 1992; Haier

and Benbow, 1995). The tests allow the

study of brain function during particular

types of mental activity, which could in-clude the performance of creative tasks.

The approach, however, is subject to the

TABLE 1

Summary of Measures Used in Principal Creativity and Advertising Creativity Studies

Author

Primarily psychometric

Guilford (1950)

Mednick (1962)

Torrance (1962. 1974.1981)

Getzels and Jackson (1962)

Wallach and Kogan (1965)

Guilford (1967)

Meeker (1969),Meeker and Meeker (1982)

Plucker and Renzulli (1999)

Naglieri and Das (1997)

Naglieri (1999)

Measure

Unusual U ses Test

Remote Associates Test

Torrance's Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT)

Four creativity measures: word association, unusual uses, hidden shapes,

make-up problems

A series of five untlmed divergent thinking tests

Structure of the Intellect (SOI)

Structure of the In tellect-Le arnin g Abilities Test (SOI-LA)

Torrance s Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT)

Cognitive Assessment System (CAS)

Planning. Attention. Simultaneous, and Successive cognitive tests (PASS); Stroop test

Combination

Reid and Rotfeld (1976) Mednick's Remote Associates Test

Attitude Scales

Expert Opinion Creative Ability Profile Scale

Mumford et al. (1998)

Primarily expert opinion

Amabile (1982)

"Guessing Consequences" subtest of TTCT scored by panel of expert judges using 5-pointscale

Consensual Assessment Technique: creative products assessed by expert judges, using

own definitions of creativity

Creativity of advertising assessed by panel of top advertising creative people

Creative Personality Scale

One Show a dvertising creativity awards

TV comm ercial popularity, measured by Video Storyboard Test Inc.

Creativity of advertising asse ssed by expert panel of senior advertising students

Van den Bergh. Reid, and Schorin (1 983)

Gough(1992)

Kover. Goldberg, and James (199 5)

Bell (1992)

Stone (2000)

1 9 4 D F f l D y E R I I S I f l G f lE S E f ia C H J u n e 2 0 0 4



DEFINITION AN D MEASURE MENT OF CREATIVITY

appro ach to Amabiie (19H2), tak-

(2001)) was interested in the relation-

oi those

other examples of judge

ert tiu'Lisurements ot " advertisirtg cre-

relationship between creati\'ity and effec-

tiveness. They examined advertising that

had been judged creative by the conven-

tional standards of the industry: creative

advertising was advertising that had won

creative awards. In the United States, the

One Show creative award is one of the

most co\Ttcd in the indus try. Kover, Cold-

berg, and James (1995) selected this nward

as evidence of creativity: thus ad\ ertising

that had receix'ed this award was deemed

"creative." This is consistent with Csik-

szentmihalyi (1999), who argued that cre-

ativity is "the ability to add something

neu' to the culture" (p. 314) such that it is

"sanctioned by some group entitled to

make decisions as to what should or

should not be included in the domain"

( p . 315). For someone to be creati\e their

w ork mu^t be recognized as such by those

competent in the field, who have reached

higher levels of their profession (Csikszent-

mihalyi, 1999). Creative aw ard panels con-

sist of advertising executives whtt have

readied national or international promi-

nence in their field, thus meeting thisrequirement. Advertising award panels

operate in different ways. The process

adopted hy London International Ad%er-

tising Awards (1998) is reproduced here

for illustration:

"Each judge receives, by courier, no

more than two hours of material on

videotape, slide, audiotape, printed

proofs or actual packaging. Each judgehas several weeks, not several min-

utes, to re.ich a decision. And change

that decision, several times, so we've

been told. Our judges are the top

ranked, most highiy awarded profes-

sionals in their disciplines. As you

would expect, they bring a truly inter-

national perspective to their task....

All entries are judged for their creati\-

ity, originality and production values.

Interactive entries are judged from the

internet for their creativity, concept, ex-

ecution, functionality, interactivity and

overall impact. Score sheets are faxed

back to our office tor tabulation. Even

the judges don't know who the v\ in-

ners are. Only the Jury Chairmen and

our staff do."

The measures of advertising creativity

discussed thus far are "post-hoc" mea-

sures: they ha\e been used to evaluate

the creati\ ity of commercials that ha\'e al-

ready featured in campaigns and have

been seen by their target audiences in or-

der to reward outstanding creati\e perfor-

mance or to fulfill the nee ds of academic

researchers. Many practitioners p r e - or post-

test comm ercials, but this practice is by no

means universal, although there is evi-

dence that it is increasingly common. Of

112 agencies and a dvertisers surveyed ,

over 85 percent of agencies claimed to

evaluate copy ideas before producing a

rough commercial, avvv 97 percent evalu-

ated the rough version, and 9 0 percent eval-

uated the finished commercial (Belch andBelch, 2U01). How e\er, this testing is usu-

ally concerned with effectiveness, com-

prehension, recall, acceptability, or for

effect on corporate image. There is evi-

dence linking recall to creativity (e.g., Bo-

gart, Tolley, and Orenstein, 1970; Gibson,

1996), but there is little indication that prac-

titioners employ any formalized systems or

techniques specifically for the direct mea-

surement of advertising creativity. Instead,it is likely that winning creative solutions

are recognized a s such by the creative teams

themselves, using the "Aha!" factor (Par-

lies, 1975), and are then "sold" by them to

the account m anagement team. Ultimately

the client decides on the basis of an agen-

cy's work whether that agency is suffi-

ciently creative to be retained (White and

Smith, 2001), but it is surely i'l the agency's

interest to have an objective m ethod of pre-

dicting this judgment.

J u n e 2 0 0 4 J O U H O H L O F flO U E F tT IS lO G B E S E H 1 9 5



DEFINITION AND MEASUREM ENT OF CREATIVITY

ENCOURAGING AND ENHANCING

CREATIVITY

I Vople cniploved in a creative cipacity per-

form better under certain conditions, and

many researchers (e.g., Amabile, 1 9 9 8 ; An-

derson, 1 9 9 2 , Cum mings and O ldhnm, 1997;

Nickerson, 1999) hii\e consequently de-

voted effort to establish how creativity may

be encouraged and enhanced. The gener-

ation of adv ertising concep ts that fulfill ihe

requirem ents of the client brief and tbe ac-

count nianiij;ement team is a complex pro-

cess, invoK ing the conside ration of a large

number of factors and decisions. Davies

(2000) suggested that anything that can be

don e to reduce the complexity is worthy of

consideration and recommended the u s e o f

decision-support software. A n analytical hi-

erarchy process (AH P), for exam ple, could

be used as a j;roup decision support sys-

tem toenhance tb e ad\ e rtising creative brief.

According to Da\ i e s , an AHP can facilitate

the creative prcKoss and encoura ge the gen-

eration of ideas, mainly by orga nizing, clar-

ifying, and simplifying the decisions that

need to be taken. Creatives may thus befreed to concentrate their efforts on the cre-

ative task at hand-

Amabile (1998) listed six aspects of man-

agerial practice thai affect creativity. These

a r e : challenge, freedom, resources, organi-

zational support, supervisory encourage-

ment, and work-group features. Among

the "resources" that could be made avail-

able, the most important are lime and

money. Others often cited as essential forcreativity include the amount and quality

of workspace. Although Amabile felt this

was overstated, the workplace, relation-

ships with super\i.sors and colleagues,

gency philosophies, and the nature of

assigned tasks all have a significant im-

pact on creativity (e.g., Scott and Bruce,

1 9 9 4 ; West and Eord, 2001). One inhibitor

of creativity is fear (N ickerson, 1999). Re-

search has shown, for example, that fear

is the main reason why children may be

One inhibitor of creativity is f e a r . . . . Fear largeiy resu lts

from the degree of risk perceived. This includes the risk

of failure , ridicule, and the exposure of limitations.

reluctant to express their ideas to others

(Freeman, 1983). Eear largely results from

the degree of risk perceixed. This in-

cludes the risk of lailuru, ridicule, and the

exposure of limitations. There is no rea-

son to believe that this is any different for

adults, ond people who are more suscep-

tible to pressure to conform have indeed

been found to be less creati\e (Crutch-

field, 19(i2). The positi\e relationship be-

tween risk-taking and creative achievement

in advertising is now established (El-

Mu rad, 20t12), and younger, unm arried,

male creatives without dependents have

been found to have both a higher propen-

sity toward risk and higher levels of cre-

ativity (El-Murad, 2t)l)2). Managers should

encourage employees—especially thosethat do not fit this profile—to take cre-

ative risks by providing their staff with a

conduci\'0 work environment and "sur-

rounding them by a context that nurtures

their creative potential" (Cummings and

Oldha m, 1997, p. 3 5 ) . This includes a stKial

en\ ironment at work that will encourage

positive interactions (Brower, 2000). The

work environment can easily be changed

to cater to the needs of creative people,and this, by having a positive effect on

intrinsic moti\ ation, can thus hc^\•e an im-

mediate L'ffect oti performance (Amabile,

1 9 8 3 , 1998). Supervisors should be sup-

portive and noncontrolling (Cummings

and Oldham, 1997) and show creative

staff "sympathetic understanding" while

at the same time giving specific, agreed

guidelines and clear boundaries that staff

understan d and appreciate (Fletcher, 1990).

These guidelines and boundaries are im-

port.int, as, witht>iit them, the inti-liectual

indcpendiMice that is essential for creati\-

ity can become a complete disregard for

authority: a "willingness to be unconven-

tional" can become a "compulsion to be

nonconformist for the sake of nonconfor-

mity" and a "willingness to take reason-

able risks" can become "an irrational

disregard for possible consequences of ac-

tions" (Nickerson, 1999). Within these

boun daries, however, staff should be given

the maximum possible flexibility and free-

dom to create, "for this delicate little plant,

aside from stimulation, stands mainly in

need of freedom" (Einstein, 1946, p. 7).

The notion of working in teams to en-

courage and enhance creativity, both by

mutual stimulation and by the provisionof feedback, is well documented (e.g.,

Brower, 2000; King and Anderson, 1990;

Sethi, Smith, and Park, 21)01). Amabile

(1998) stressed the importance of the de-

sign of these teams, so that they are mu-

tually supportive, yet have a diversity of

perspectives and backgrounds. This "di-

versity" brings added scope for addi-

tional combinations or associations. Leo

Burnett was the first to realize the impor-tance of teams in the context of advertis-

ing, when be established the concept of

creative teams in his agency, matching

and pairing copywriters with art direc-

tors (Rothenberg, 1998),

Anderson (1992) believed that tincre-

ati\'e people ctrc constrained by their be-

lief in a series of myths about creativity,

including that it is "too big to handle" or

that it is only for geniuses (see also Johar,

Holbrook, and Stem, 2001). In a similar

1 9 6 J O y B flB L D f f l O U E R T I S l i m R E S E f l f lC t l J u n e 2 0 0 4



DEFINITION ANDMEASUREMENT OF CREATIVITY

0), rather surprisingly,

posited that people

before him, argued that creativity

these attitudes if

10 "decisiiHis" that people could

elopment of creative giftedness in chil-

Td rcdtfine problem'-^: to attempt fo see

them in ti different wni/ to other people.

T[) leuru to nnali/zc iind criticize their

own ideas, înce nobo di/ lias anii/ yivi^

ideas.

To sell their kieas: il is naive to assumethat good creative ideas sell them<:elvei:

To recognize that knowledge is a double-

edged sword: it is not possible to be cre-

ative 'with insufficient knowledge, but too

much knowledge can hinder crcaliviti/.

To have the courage to oiêrcome obsta-

clfs, io face opposition, since truly cre-

atizv ideas are always likely to be opposed.

To take risks, and not be tempted to offer

standard, safe solutions.

willing to grow, and not rest on

their one good creative idea.

To believe in themsehvs, because there

will often be times when nobodu else be-

liei'cs in them.

To learn to tolerate ambiguiti/. because

ueu> ideas are not ahcai/s inilialhi

successful.

Finalh/, since research has show)i thai

people are at their wost creative when

thcu are doing something theif love, peo-

ple should find out what then love to do.

tnid do it.

Most of these points will be familiar Ut

people involved with creating and re-

searching advertising. The fourth point,

for example, will be familiar to observers

of the debate on testing, while the tenth

may suggest that creatives should special-

'i7x\ perhaps in particular product areas or

client groups.

SUMMARY

The balance of evidence supports the view

that there is still considerable interest in

creativity or the science of "creatology"

as it is becoming known. In terms of

definition, the evidence suggests that ad-

vertising creativit)' involves the concep-

tualization and production of an object

from new or existing components in a

novel way that is also relevant to the

task in hand. Developing such an object

may involve some form of switching be-

tween primary and secondary cognitive

modes in a defix-used way, but the use

of asstKiation is likely to be central to

the process. The process of advertising

creativity is, in most respects, identical to

the process of creativity in the arts.

It is clear that psychometric methods

are still widely used to measure individ-

ual creativity whereas appiied and prac-

titioner research tends toward the use of

expert opinion in some form (be that se-

nior ad\ertising creatives, ad\ertising ac-

ademics, their students, or members of

the advertiser's target audience). As such,

the norms of advertising practitioner cre-

ativity measurement are significantly dif-

ferent to tht>se used by other social

scientists. Practitioner measurement, how-

ever, is largely confined to annual awards

ceremonies: there is little evidence of cre-

ativity measurement as part of the pro-

cess of de\'eloping advertising. Given th.il

clients select and retain agencies on the

basis of their perceived creativity, this is

somewhat surprising.

Taken as a whole, the evidence on en-

couraging and eiihancing creativity under-

scores the inhibiting effects of self-doubt,

fear of risk taking, and fear of opposition

and criticism. All of these can be aggra-

vated by an inappropriate working envi-

ronment but can be rectified by appropriate

changes and investments, while indi\'id-

uals can be encouraged to have a more

positive attitude toward creative risk-

taking.

EL-MURAD (DBA) IS chair of marketing and

business strategy al Westminster Business School.

University of Westminster. London, Heteaches ad-

vanced marketing practice and strategic marketing to

both undergraduate and MBA students. His research

interests are currently focused on the relationship

between risk attitude and advertising creativity. Prior

to joining the Universtty. he hadextensive inter-

national marketing experience at a senior level with

several brand-name multinationals.

DOUGLAS WEST (Ph.D.) is professor of marketing at

Westminster Business School, University of Westmin-

ster. London. His articles have appeared in many

publications, including theEuropean Journal of Market-

ing, the Internationa/ Jaurrial ofAdvenismg. the Inter-

natlor)al Marketing Review, theJournalol Advertising,

the Journal ofAdvertising Research, theJournal of

Creative Behavior, the Journaiof Forecasting, and the

Journal of Marketing Management.

REFERENCES

A\i,.\Bii F, T. M, "The Sdci.il Psychology of Cre-

.iH\ity: A Consensutil Aîsessment Technique,"

journal of Personality and Social P^îicholog}/ 4 3 , 5

(1982): 997-1013.

, The Social Pfî/chobgy of Creativiti/. New

York: Springe r-Vt-rla , 1983.

J u n e 2 0 0 4 J O U f l l l f i L O F [ I D l lE R T l S in G R E S E H R C H 1 9 7




. "How tu Kill Creativity." Hannird Busi-

ness Review. 76, S(1^98): 7h-H7.

A N D E R S O N , ]. "Weirder than Fiction: The Real-

ity and Myths of Creativity," Acadcfin/ of Man-

agcmmt Execulilfe 6, 4 (1992): 40-47.

ANDRiorouLOs, C. "Dt'terminants ot Orj;onls<i-

tional Creativity: A Literature Review." Mun-

agentt'iil Dvcitîtm 39, 10 (2001): 834-40.

B A I L I N , S. "Can Therf He Creativity witliuut

Creation?" hiWrduiiiiê t.S, 2 119^): 13-22.

B A R R O N , \r . Crcativitif ami Personal Fnvihni. New

York: Vnn Nostrand, 1968.

-. Creutitv Person ami Crealiiv Process. New

York: Holt, Kineh.irt, & \-Vinstoii, I OT.

B E L C H , G. E., and M. A. B E L C H . Advfrtisiiif; ami

Promotion, an liitcgratai Marketing Civniminica-

tians Perspectivf (International ed,). New York:

irwin McGraw-Hill, 1998.

, tind . Advertising and Proviotion, an

lijtet^ratcd Markctin;^ Comiiiiiiiicatums Pcrspvcthc

(5th Ed., Internationai Ld.J. New York: irwin

McGraw-Hill, 2001.

B E L L , J. A. "Creativity, TV Commerciai Popu-

larity, an d Ad\ertising Expenditures." hitrr-

natiomil lournal of Aiivcrlisina U, 2 (1992); 165-73.

B L AIK , M. H. '.\W Empirical Inv»stij;ation of

Advertising Wearin an d Wearout." foiirmil of

Aihertisiii;^ Rr^nirch 28, 6 (198S): 4S-' 0.

BocART, L., S ToLLtY, and F. O R E N S T E I N . "What

One Little Ad Can Do." lunrnal of Adv

Rvseanh 10, 4 (1970): 3-13.

, L. "Keep Listening to That Wee, Small

Voice." In Readin^!^ in Ai/t'crf/s/'iiy tiiui i''iviiioliiiii

Stnitc\;u, Arnold M. Barban and C. H. Sandage,

eds . Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin, 1968.

BuzzELL, R. D. "Predicting Short-'Ierni C

in Market Share as a Function of Advertising

Strateg)'." jotmml of Mnrkctiufi Re^'anh 1, 3 (19W):

2 7 - 3 1 .

C A L L A H A N , C. M. "The Assessment of Creativ-

ily." In Htindlm)k of Gifted Ediicalion, N. Colan-

gelo an d G. A. Davis, eds. Hoston, MA: Allvn

& Bacon, 1991.

L ' H A N C . L, Lind M. A. RiiNfo. "Problem Tind-

ing Skills as Components in the Creative t'ru-

cess." Persoualitff and Imiiz'idiial DiffcreiKn- 14

(1992): 155-62.

C R G P L E Y , A. J . "[defining and Measuring Cre-

ativity: Are Creativity Tests Worth Using?"

Roqvr Review 23, 2 (2000): 72-80.

CR U T CH F IE I 1), K. S. "Conformity an d Creative

Thinking." In Conti'iuporari/ Af^proticfwii lo Cre-

iltivi- Viiukinn, H. Gruber, G. Terell, and M.

Wertheimer, eds. New York: Atherton, 1962.

CsEKSZENTMiHALYi, M. "Society, Culture, an d

Person: A System.s View of Creativity." In Hif

Nilturf of Crfativit\f, Sternberg, R., ed . Cam -

bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.

. "Implications of a Systems Perspective

for the Study of Creativity." In Hajuihook of

Crvativitt/, R. Sternberg, ed . Cambridge: Cam-

bridge University Press, 1999.

CuMMiNCS, A., and G. O L I J H A M . "Managing

Work Contexts for the High Potential Fm -

ployee." California Mamêntciii Ra'iiii' 40, 1

(1997): 22-38.

D L B O N O , F . Litnvi Thinking far Manngenienl.

New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971.

. S/.v Thinking- //,f(s. Boston, MA: Little,

Brown, 1985.

. Serious Creativitxi: Using the Power ofLat-

t'ral Thinking to Create Ncii' Idcaa. New York:

Harper Collins, 1992,

Dt:vvi\(,, K., .ind <.,. B A M v h . "Attention Deploy-

ment and Non-Verbal Fluency." journal of Per-

lih/ ijiid Sodii! P^mhohgu 17 {lt»7n: 214-lS.

D I M ION, 1. "The Triumph of Creativit)' over

Coninuinication." joiirmil of Adivrtising 4, 3

D Y K I S , M. , .ind A. MctliiiF. "A Comparative

Study ol Attcniinn.il Strategies in Schizophren-

ics and Highly Creative Normal Subjects." Bri>-

ish joiirmil of Pi^ychiatrii 12S (1976): ^0-56.

E I N S T E I N , A. "Autobiographical Notes," In Vie

Libranj of Living Philosoplier^. VIII. Allvrt Ein-

stein: Philosopher Scienlisl, P. Schilpp, ed. and

translator. New York: Open Court Publi^hing

Company, 1946.

F L - M U R A D , |. "The Relationship Between Risk

Attitude iind Advertising Creativity." DBA the-

sis, Henley Management College/Brunei Uni-

versity, 2002.

, and . C. W E S T . "Risk and Cre-

ativity in Advertising." loiiriuil of Marketing Man-

iigcment 19, 5-6 (2003): 657-73.

EwiNt;, M I C H A E L T , |. J L 'L IE N A P O L I , an d D O U G -

LA S C. WtsT. "Creative Personalities, Processes,

and Agency Philosophies: Implications for Glo-

bal Advertisers." Cn-atii'ily Research Jmtrtial 13,

2(2001): 161-70.

B R O W F R , R. " T O Reach a Star: The Creativity of

Vincent van Cogh." High Ability Studies i l , 2

(2000): 179-205.

DAVII- :S , M . "Using an Analytical Hierarchy

Process in Advertising Creativity." Crcotivitii

mui Innovation Management 9, 2 (2000): UX)-108.

EYSENCK, H. "Creativity and PerMinalitN': A Theo-

retical Perspective."I'sychologicai Enquiry

4, 3(1993): 147-78.

1 9 8 L O f f l O U E R T I S l O B R E S E R B C H J u n e 2 0 0 4



DEFINITION ANDMEASUREMENT OFCREATIVITY

K., 1. W A I U ) , and S. S M I I I I . Craitivf

md Applicalion?. C a m -

MA: MIT Press, 1992.

VV. "The M a n a g e m e n t of Croati\ ' i ty."

of Advertising 9, 1 (1990):

J. "E motiona l Problem,-, of the Gifted

joiirmil ofChild Psi/cJiologij ami Psi/chiii-

(1983): 481-8 5.

)., and P. J A C K S O N . Creativity and In-

Stiidentf-. New

1962.

L. " W h a t Ci n One TV Hxposure Do?"

36 , 2 (1496): 9-!7.

S. "Psychological Study of Creativ-

Psychoiogkal Bulkiin 6L1 (i963): 54S-65.

H. "A Crt'ati\ ' ity Scale for the Adjec-

journal of i'er^oimlity iDid Social

37 (1979): n9S-140[^ .

. " A s s e s s m e n t ot Creative Potential in

and the D e v e l o p m e n t ofa Creat ive

for the Cl ' i . " InAdvances in

Vol. H, 1. Rosen and

eds. New York: Plenum, 1992

inCropiey (2000)] .

I."An A nalyt ica l A pproach to the Cre-

of A d v e r t i s i n g . " U n p u b l i s h e d

thesis , Cleveland, Case Insti tutt- of Tcch-

1967.

. "The CriM tivL' A .'^pects of A d v e r t i s i n g . "

t4, 1 (1472): S3-109.

G U I L F O R D , J. P. "Creativity." Anu-ricau Psi/eiiol-

ogi^t 5 (1450): 444-54-

. The Nature of Htunan luteUigence. New

York: M cGraw -Hill , 1967.

, P. R. MERRiriELD, and R. C. W I L S O N .

Unusual Uses Test. O r a n g e , CA: S her idan Psy-

chological Services, 1958.

KK R., and C. B E N B O W . "Sex Differences

and la tera l i /a t inn in Temporal Lobe Glucose

M etaboli sm Dur ing M athemat ica l Reasoning ."

DevelopniPiilal Ni'umps^/ehohgi/ 11 (1995): 4t)4-14.

, B. SitGEL, C. T A N C , L. A B E I , and M.

BucHSBAUM. "Intell igence and C h a n g e s in Re-

gional Cerebral Glucose M etabolic R ate Follow-

ing Learning ." Intelligence 16 (1992): 415-26.

Ki-y, M. "An A ppl ica t ion utA m a b i l e ' s Con-

sensual A ssessment Technique for R a t i n g the

Creat iv i ty of C h i l d r e n ' s M u s i c a l C o m p o s i -

t ions ." journal afResearch inMusic Education 4.9.,

3 (2001): 2.34-45.

HiKscKMAN, E.C " R o l e -B a s ed M o d e l s of Ad-

\ 'ert ising Creation and Product ion ." iournti! of

Advertising 18 , 4 (1989): 4 2 - 5 3 .

R, D. " M e a s u r e m e n t ot Creativity: Ke-

view andCri t ique ." Journal of Personality As-

sessment ^5. 5 (1981): 450-64.

IChK, A., and M. FisimKiN . "The Prediction of

B i 'haviora! Intentio ns in a Choice S i tua t ion ."

jouriiol of Experunenta! S<hia! P'r-i/chology 5 (19h9).

-, and -, "The Prediction ol B ehavior

I N N A M O R A T O , G. "Creativit) ' in tht? Develop-

m e n t of Scientific Giftedness: E ducational Im-

pl ica t ions ." Roeper Rivirtv 21 , 1 (1998): 54-60.

ioiiAR, tdTA V E N K A T A K A M A N I , M D R R I S 15. HO L-

B R O O K , and B A R B A K A B. S T E R N . "The Role of

M y t h in Creative Advertising Design; Theory,

Process and O u t c o m e . " journal of Aiivertising

30, 2 (2001): 1-25.

K, A., D. S L A Y D E N , and S. J.

" R e a l W o r l d s and Ivory Towers: A S u r v e y of

Top Creative Directors." journalism andMass

Comnninication Educator 51, S ummer (1996) :

63-74.

K H A T E N A , J. "M yth: Creat iv ity is too Difficult

to M easure!" Gifted Child Quarteriy 26 (1982):

21-23.

from A tti tudinal and N orn\a t i \e V ar iables. " jour-

na i of Expcriuicnlal Soeia! I'si/chology h (1970).

c;, N., and N, . A N [ I E R S O N . "Innovation in

W o r k in g G r o u p s . " In innovation and Creativity,

at Work, M i c ha e l A. W est and J a m e s L. Farr ,

eds. New York: J. W iley and S o n s , 1990.

KILLING, R. "W orking Tools. " In The Creative

Process: A Si/inposhmi, B. Ghise l in , ed. B erkeley,

CA : U nivers i t \ ' of Californin Press, 1983 (first

publ i shed in 19371,

KusLOW S., S. L. S A S S E R , and E. F. R I O R D A N .

" W h a t is Creat ive to W h o m and W h y ? " journal

of Advertising Research 43 1 (2003): 96-110.

Kov! R, A. J., S. M. Goi-DiJKRt";, and W L. J A M E S .

"Creativity vs. Effectiveness? An In tegra t ing

Classification for A d v e r t i s i n g . " journal of Adver-

tising Research 35, 6 (1995): 29-40.

K R I S , K. I'si/chonnniiflic Exploriitioii-^ lu Art. New

York: International Universit ies Press, 1 52.

H. E., and D. IJ. W A L L A C H . "Under-

at W o r k. " In

R. [. S ternberg , ed. Cam-

Cam bridge U nivers i ty Press , 1999.

-, and "Attitudes and Normative L O N D O N I N T E R N A T I ON A L A D V E R T I S IN G A W A R D S .

Beliefs as F actors Inf luencing B ehaviora l. In ten- "A bou t Lon don in tern at ion al A dve r t i s i ng

t ions ." journal of Experinieiitiil Sociai i^sydioiogy A w a r d s . " [URL: h t t p : / / w w w . H a a w a r d s . c o m ] ,

31 , 1 (1472)- accesse d July 1998.

J u n e 2 0 0 4 J O U R f l f l L flF f l O U E f lT f S lf lG R E S E f if l f l f i 1 9 9



DEFINITION ANDMEASUREM ENT OF CREATIVITY

, C. ). "Evolving Creat ive Minds : Sto-

ries and Mechan i s ms . " In i-iandbook of Creativ-

ity, R. J. Sternberg , ed. Cambr i dge : Cambr i dge

University Press, 1999.

M A C K I N N O N , D . "Personal ity and fhe Realiza-

tion of Creative Potential ." Aincriean Psycholo-

gist 20(1963): 273-81 .

M A R T I N D A L E , C. "Biological Bases of Crc. i t i \ -

ity." In Handbook of Creativity, R. J. Sternberg .

ed . Cambridge: Cambridge Univers i ty Press ,

1999.

ME DNIC K, S. A. "The A ssociative Basis of fho

Creative Process." Psychohgieal Revierv 69 (1962):

220-32.

MEEKER, M. The Structure of inteUect: Ils Inter-

pretation und il^^es. Col umbus , OH: Char les &

Merrii l , 1969.

, and R. MEEKER. Structure-of-lnteilect Learn-

ing Abilities Test: Evaluation, Le iuiership, and Cre-

ative Tliinidng. E!Segundo , CA: SC)l Insti tute,

1982.

M E N D E L S O H N , G. A. "A ssocia t ive ahd A t t en -

tional Processes in Creat ive Performance. " jour-

na l of Personality 44 (1976): 341-69.

MiCHELL, P. C. N., and H. C A T A Q U E T . "Estab-

lishing the Caus es of Disaffection in A gency -

Client Relations." jaurnai of Advertising Research

32 , 2 (1992):

Y, S. E. Creative Advertising: Tlieon/ &

Practice (2nd ed.). Eng lewo od Cliffs, N J: Prentice-

H aU, 1991.

, and B. G. VA N D K N B E R C H . "Advertising

Creat ives Look at Creativity." lournal of Creative

Behaviour 18, 3 (1984): 162-74.

Innovat ion . " Psyclwlojiical Builetiii 103, 1 (1988):

27-43 .

, M. A. M A R K S , M. S. C O N N E L L E Y , S. J.

Z A C C A R O , and J. Y: J O H N S O N . "Domain-based

Scoring of Divergent-thinking Tests: Validation

Evidence in an O ccupat ional Sample . " Creativ-

ity Re search journai U (1998): 151-63 Icited in

Cropiey (20(X))l.

NAC L IE R T , J. A. E'ssentials of CAS Assessment.

N ew Y ork: Wiley, 1999 [cited in N agl ier i (2001)1.

. "Unders tand ing In te l ligence , Gi t tedness

and Cre.iti\ ' ity Using the PASS Theory." Rocper

Review 23, 3 (2001): 151-37.

Handbook of Creativity, R. ] . Sternbe rg, cd. Cam-

br idge: Cambridge Univers i ty Press , 1999.

, and M. A. RLJNCO. "The Death of Cre-

, and I. P. D A S . Cognitive Assessment Sys-

tem. I tasca, IL: Riverside Pu blishing , 1997 [cited

in Nag lieri (2001)].

NiCKt:RSON, R. S. "Enhtincing Creativity." In

Handbook of Creativity, R. St ember g , ed. Cam-

br idge: Cam bridge Univers i ty Press , 1999.

O ' C O N N O R , G. C , T. K. W I L L R M A I N , and J.

M A C L A C I I L A N . "The V a l ue of Compe t i t i on

. ^ mong A genc i e s in Deve l op i ng Ad Cam-

paigns : Revis i t ing Cress ' s ModeL" jonrnnl of

Advertising 25, 1 (1996): 51-62.

O G I I A Y , D A V I D . Co)ifes?ions of an Advertising Man.

L ondon : L ongman , 1964.

. Ogilvi/ on Advertif^ing. L ondon : O r b i s,

1983.

O S B O R N , A. F. Applied liiiaginalion (rev. ed.).

N ew York: Scribn er 's , 1953.

PAR NE S, S. J. "A ha ! " ln Perspectives in Crcntii'-

ity, 1. A. Taylor and |, VV, Cietzels, eds. C hicago ,

11.: A l d ine , 1975 [cited in White and Smith

), M. D., and S. B. G U S T A F S O N . "Cre-

at iv ity Syndrom e: in tegra t ion . A ppl ica tion , and

PLL ICKER, ]. A., and J. S. R E N / U L L I . "Psychomet-

r ic A pproaches to the Study of Creativity." tn

at iv i ty Measurement Has Been Greatly Exag-

gera ted: Current I ssues , Recent A dvances , and.

Future Direc t ions in Creat iv i ty A ssessment . "

Rocper Review 2 1 , 1 (1998): 36-40.

PoLiTZ, A . "Creati\en ess and Imaginat ion . " jour-

mi l of Advertising; 4, .1 (1975): 11-14.

R E I D , L.. K. K I N C . and D. D E L O R M E . "Top-

Level Creatives Look at A dver t i s ing Creat iv i ty

T hen and Now." journal of Advertising 27, 2

(1998): 1-16.

, and H. ROTFELD. " T o w a r d an A ssocia-

tive Model of A dver t i s ing Creat iv i ty . " journal

Of Advertising 5, 4 (1976): 24-29 .

R HODE S, M . "A na l y si s ofCreativity." Phi Delta

Kappcn 42, 7 (1961): 305-10.

RossiTER, J O H N R., and LARRY PERCY. Advertis-

ing Connnunications & Promotion Management.

N ew York: McGraw -H i l l , 1997.

RoTHENBERCi, R. "Burnett over Bernba ch? 'T im e'

Doesn ' t Get A dver t i s ing Genius . " Advertising

Ag , July 12. 1998.

R U N C O , M . A., and S. M. O K U D A . "The Instruc-

t ional Enhancement ofthe Flexibility and O r ig -

inality Scores of Divergent Thin king Tes ts . "

Applied Cognitive Psychology 5 (199U: 4 3 5 ^ 1 .

„ and S. O . S A K A M O T O . "Experimental Stud-

ies ofCreativity." in Handbook of Creativity, R. J.

Sternberg , ed. Cambr i dge : Cambr i dge Un i ve r -

sity Press. 1999.

S C O T T , S. G., and R. A. BRUCE. "Determinants

of Innox'ative Behavior: A Path Mode! of I ndi -

v idual Innovat ion in the Workplace . " Academy

of ManageinciJt journal .37, 3 (1994): 580-607.

2 0 0 J O U R n fIL O F f l D U E H T I S f n e R E S E H R C II J u n e 2 0 0 4




t, R., D.C. SMEIH, and C. W.PARK. "Cross-

Pniduct Development Teams, Cre-

and the Inmnativeness of Consumer

journai ofMarkihig Ri-search 38 (2001 J:

afivity, R. |. Sternberg, ed. Cambridge: Cam-

bridge University Press, 1999.

, L. A. O ' H A K A , AN D T. I. LUBART. "Cre-

ativity 3s Investment." California ManagementReview 40 , 1 (1947): H-2L

J, D. K. "Crt'ativity fmm aHistorio-

Jn Handbooif af Crt-iJti'oit\f,STONE. G . "Recall, Liking, and Creativity in TV

ternberg, ed. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-Commercials: A New Approach." journal of Ad-

Press, 1999.vertising Research 4lJ, 3 (2000): 7-19.

S., M. WARD, and R. FINKI:, YDS. The

• f~ ... . I ,- L • 1 1 . * ^ kiRRANCE, E. P. Guidin'i Creative Talent. Ennle-

C .imhritfge, MA: ' '

Pres.s, 1995. ^'•'""^ '^^^"'" ^ ' • ' • ' ^ ' " ' i ' ^ ^ ' - ' " ' ' ^ " ' l ^ ^ -

R. ]. "Identifying and Developing Torrance Tests of Creative Thinkitig. Lex-

e Giftedness." KctV'crKcf'jfir 23, 2(201X1): ington. MA: Personnel Press, 1974 |cited in

Plucker and Ren -ulli

, and |. V. D A V I D S O N , I D S , The Natureof

Cambridge, MA: Mil Press, IWS.

, and y. I. L L H A I U , "Anliu'estment Theory

and Its Development." iliiinan

.34 (19^1): ]~M.

-, and . "Buy Low and Sell High: An

to Creativity." Current

in Pstjchologicat Science I, 1 (1942):

, and . Defying the Cn rcrf: Cultivatiiig

in a Cultiin' of Confiirmity. New York:

1995.

, and . "Investing in Creativity.'

31 (1996): 677-88.

, and . "The Concept of Creativity:

In tliiiiilbook of Cre-

. "Predicting theCreativity of Elementary

School Children (1958-1980)—and the Teacher

Who Made a Difference." Gifled Child Quan-rty

25 (1981): 55-62.

UNSWORTH, K."Unpacking Creati\-ity." Acad-

emy of Management Review 26, 2 (2001): 289-97.

V AN DEN BERCH, B., L. REID, and G. SCHORIN.

"How Many Creative Alternatives toGener-

ate?" journal of Advertising 12, 4 (1983): 46-49.

WACKMAN. DANIEL B., C. T. SALMON, and C.

SALMON. "Developing an Advertising Agency-

Client Relationship." foiirtial of Advertising Re-

search26, ft (1986/1987): 21-2B,

W AI i.ACn, M., and N. KIX^AN. "Modes of Think-

ing in Young Children: A Study of the Creativ ity-

Intelligence Distinction." New >brk: Wiley, 1965.

WEISBERC, R. Creativitii. Beifonii theMyth of G e-

nius. New York: Freeman, 1993.

WEST, DOUC.L.\S C. "Cross-National Creative

Personalities, PrcKesses and Agency Philoso-

phies." journal of Advertising Research 33,5 (1993):

53-62.

. "Restricted Creativity: Advertising

Agency Work Practices inthe US. Canada and

the UK." lonrnni of CreatiiV Behavior 27. 3 (1994):

200-13.

WEST, DOUGLAS C. "36(r of Creative Risk: An

Agency Tlieory Perspective." journal of Adivr-

tisiiig Rfst'oreh 39, 1 (1999): 39-SO.

, and JOHN FORD, "Advertising Agency

Philosophies and Employee Risk Taking." jour-

nal of Adivrtising 30, I (2001): 77-91 .

, ALAN M IC I AK , ami ADRIAN SAKCKANT.

"Advertiser Risk-Orientation and the Opin-

ions and Practices of Advertising Managers."

Internationa! lournal of Advertising 18 (1999):

51-71.

W H I T E , A., and B. SMITH. "Assessing Advertis-

ing Creati\ it\' Using the Creative Pniduct Se-

mantic Scale." journal of Adivrtising Research 41,

6(2001): 27-34.

W H I T E , G. E. "Creati\ity: The X Factor in Ad-

vertising Theory." journal of Advertising 1, 1

(1972): 28-32.

Z I N K H A N , G. "Creafi\-ity in Advertising, Cre-

ati\'ity in the lournal of Advertising," journal if

Advertising 22, 2 (1993): 1-3.

elmuradandwest

Documents