In this commentary, I applaud Glăveanu’s attempts to shake things up and introduce some much-needed disruption into the study of creativity. Glăveanu is a “ big thinker” and he is correct to worry about the growing fragmentation of the field. I share his concern that the so-called “ social psychology of creativity” really isn’t all that social. Most researchers and theorists continue to decontextualize creativity, giving little attention to the cultural and environmental factors that contribute to creativity of performance. Yet Glăveanu also presents some arguments with which I disagree. Most striking is his apparent misunderstanding of the purpose and functioning of the Consensual Assessment Technique (CAT). In addition, I am less surprised than is Glăveanu about the current state of our field. The same narrowing of research questions plagues every branch of the study of psychology. However, the tides may be changing. At the forefront of a reform movement are a number of creativity theorists and journal editors. My own hope is that as researchers are given license to expand their work to include a wide variety of experimental designs, methodologies and contexts, they will adopt as their core mission the promotion of the growth of creativity at the individual, group, societal and multi-cultural levels.
- Intrinsic motivation
- Social psychology of creativity