the definition and measurement of creativity: what do we know?

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

out 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 winning 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 is

therefore 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 to be 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. "Advertising creativity" is used

for the process of producing and developing ad-

\'ertising ideas. It is acknowledged that treat-

ments and executions require creativity, indeed

even 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-

man, 1983; Naglieri, 2(101), management (e.g., De

1 8 8 JDOeflflL OF flOOfflTiSIOfi flESEHRCH June 2 0 0 4 DO!: 10.1017/S0021849904040097

DEFINITION AND MEASUREMENT OF CREATIVITY

Bono, 1971; King and Anderson, IWl);

Sethi, Smith, and Park, 2001), and adver-

tising (e.g.. Gross, 1967, 1972; Hirschman,

1989; Kendrick, Slayden, and Broyles, 1996;

Kover, Goldberg, and James, 1995; Mori-

arty, 1991; Moriarty and Van den Bergh,

1984). Some observers have noted a de-

cline in Ihe le\-e] of interest shown in

advertising creativity research (e.g.,

Zinkhan, 1993). Others maintain that the

topic continues to recei\'e a great deal

of attention (e.g., Plucker and Runco,

1998). To throw some light on the issue,

a search of the ABI/INFORM Global data-

base on Proquest" was carried out for

articles featuring either "creativity" or

"creative" in the title, in an attempt to

reconcile these contradictory views. The

number of such articles rose steadily

between 1985-1995. In 1985, there were

only 18 titles, but by the end of 1995

this had risen to 85 per year—close

to a fourfold increase. For comparison,

there were 174 articles with the word

"marketing" in the title in 1985, and 399

in 1995: an increase ot only 129 percent,

though admittedly from a higher base

(see Figure 1). Having made these points,

the numbers should be viewed cau-

tiously and interpreted for wliat they are—

based on a simple search for terms in

publications available since 1985. It is not

known how those terms were used by

authors. Nor is it clear what the role oi

the growth of publications covered by

Proquest'-: has been, as the expansion of

the number of journals indexed is likely

to have played a role. Taking these ca\'e-

ats into account, the results stili point to

a significant expansion in the early 1990s

and then a fall back in the late 1990s.

Unftirtuiiately, owing to changes in the

presentation of the data by Proquest*, it

was not possible to continue the analysis

beyond 2001. However, there are signs of

renewed interest: recent papers include,

for example. White and Smith (2001), An-

Creativity90

Marketing450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

• ^ ^ Creative/creativity in Title

— — Marketing in Title

Figure 1 Number of Articles with Titles of "Creative" or"Creativity" Compared with "Marketing" Cited in Proquest®

driopoulos (2(Xn), and Koslow,Sasser, and

Riordan (2003).

WHAT DO WE KNOW?

Definitions

Creativity is often described in such termsas "creative thinking" or "ability," "prob-lem solving," "Imagination," or "innova-tion." Many definitions involve an aspectof 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 isthe ability to produce work that is novel(i.e., original, unexpected)" (Stemberg andLubart, 1999). Originality is a requiredbut insufficient cimdition for creativity:the work must also be of value; that is, itshould 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,

1988; 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 by

changes 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 concepts that most fre-

quently emerge in the practitioner literature

(see, for example, the writings of Ogilvy,

1964,1983). Hirschman (1989) also showed

that opinions tend to vary with the role of

the participant. Product managers and ac-

June 2 0 0 4 JOUfKieL OF HDllEllTISIIlll fiESEflUCH 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 teams or individuals, on the

other hand, tended to see the advertise-

ment as an opportimity to demonstrate their

own skills and aesthetic values and thereby

to promote 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-

ers' minds" (Kover, Goldberg, and James,

1995, p. 29).

S<ime writers maintain that it is not cre-

ative unless it is useful (e.g., Amabile, 1983;

Mumford and Gustafson, 1988), others view

creativity as an associative process (e.g.,

Mednick, 1962; Mendelsohn, 1976), with

some contending that 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 number of elements, each of which must

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

Csiks/entmihalyi, 1988; 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 endeavor

is considered to have faiied.

Greativity involves newness but this need

not be "new to the world." Leo Burnett 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 fresh

new light" (Burnett, 1968). Combining two

or more previously existing items, materi-

als, 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 advertising

creativity 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 maintain 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, 1998, 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, 1999; Mumford and Gustafson,

1988; Stemberg and Lubart, 1999; Unsworth,

2001). Architects and designers of all kinds

"create" by applying their originality and

imagination to solve problems and achieve

goals that are set, usually, by others. An art-

ist may paint for the purpose of self-

expression, but she or he may also do it for

critical 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 the

prcKess 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 JOyfinflL Df (lOUERTISIIlG RESEflRCH June 2 0 0 4


. . . advertising creativity is a special form of creativity

and differs from others in that "originality and imagina-

tion must operate within a goal-directed and problem-

solving context."

TheoriesUnderpinning any definition of advertis-

ing creativity is a mental model. The three

primary theories of creativity are: (1) Pri-

mary Process Gognition, (2) Defocused

Attention, and (3) Associative Hierarchies

(Martindale, 1999, pp. 138-39).

Primary Process Cognition dates from

Kris (1952) and postulates that creative

indi\iduais are more able to switch be-

tween primary and secondary cognitive

modes, primary being the mode of dream-

ing, reverie, psychosis, and hypnosis. "It

is autistic, free-associative, analogical"

(Martindale, 1999, p. 138), and a probable

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

mon" residing in the subconscious mind

of Freudian psychology (Sternberg and

Lubart, 1999). Secondary process cogni-

tion, by contrast, "is the abstract, logical,

reality-oriented thought of waking con-

sciousness" (Martindaie, 1999, p. 138). Cre-

ati\'e people switch between the two

because the primary state enables the dis-

covery of new combinations of mental

elements, while the secondary state is nec-

essary for elaboration of creative concepts

identified in the associative primary state.

Defocused Attention (Mendelsohn,

1976) concerns the number of elements

that an indixidual is able to keep in mind

at one time. The greater this number, the

more likeiy it is that the person can make

meaningful and useful combinations and

thus formulate creative ideas. There is

evidence to support the hypothesi.s that

less creative people have more narrow-

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 range

of 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

hi^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 presented, these ideas

meet 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 Research

Placing creativity within a typology formeasurement by advertising researchershas presented a number of challenges.First to be mentioned has to be Rhodes(1961) who provided the first widelyquoted creative typology. He argued thatcreativity does not occur in a vacuum,instead it is demonstrated by (I) the cre-ative person, who, by means of (2) thecreative process produces (3) the creati'oe

prodnd. in response to the macru/micn>

June 2 0 0 4 JOURflRL OF HOyERTISIIlG RESERRCR 1 9 1


environment in which he or ;?hc is lo-

cated, which he called (4) the creative press.

Plucker and Renzulli (1999) fiirther sepa-

rate "press" into "environment" and "per-

suasion," but the distinctions are hard to

disentangle. Thus knowledge of "creativ-

ity" may be gained by studyinj^ any of

these four interlinked elements. The "cre-

ativity" of people can be evaluated by

direct study of the creative person, or by

assessing the quaiity and/or quantity of

the creative praduct. The process may be

inferred by observing the persoti and the

product in combination, whilst the pre^s

may be studied for its effect on the other

three.

Following from Rhodes, Sternberg and

Lubart (1999) ha\'e outlined a seven-part

typology based on the development stages

of creativity during which a particular

approach was dominant, rather than the

description of the overall components as

identified by Rhodes. The first of these

was (1) the Mystical approach, where

creativity was believed to be inspired by

some external, "spiritual" force—the

"muse" of classical poets and was thus

not really a suitable subject for scientific

enquiry. Kipling (1937/1985), for exam-

ple, spoke of the "Daemon" that lives in

the writer's pen: "When i/oiir Dnemoii is

in charge, tio not think cofiscioiisli/. Drift,

wail, and abn/." (2) The Pragmatic ap-

proach involved practitioners who devel-

oped and taught techniques that they

believed could improve creativity but that

had little or no research basis. A pioneer

of this approach was Osborn (1953), who

proposed a set of "rules" for what came

to be known as "brainstorming," which

worked by creating a climate (cf. environ-

ment or press) conducive to divergent

thinking. De Bono (e.g., 1971, 1985, 1992)

has been the leading proponent of this

approach. The Psychodynamic approach

(3) is based on the Freudian belief that

croativitv results trom the resolution of

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 were 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-

ric, 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 to

provide 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,

1995; 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,

1993; Cough, 1979; MacKinnon, 1965).

Traits common to creative people in ad-

vertising include originality, intelligence

and vision in terms of recognizing big

ideas (Ewing, Napoli, and West, 2001;

West, 1993, 1994), and the willingness to

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

1999; 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 one's mental set

during 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 they

could 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).

1 9 2 JOyfiflRL or HDyERTISIIiG flESEflflCH June 2 0 0 4


Psychometric Tests

The first creativity tests to be used were

those that followed Cuilford's 1950 ad-

dress. Often referred to as divergent think-

ing tests, they included Guilford's

"Unusual Uses Test" (Guilford, Merri-

field, and Wilson, 1938); his "Structure of

the Intellect" Test (SOI) (Guilford, 1967);

Mcdnick's "Remote Associates Test" (Med-

nick, 1962); Torrance's "Tests of Creative

Thinking" (TTCT) (Torrance, 1974), based

on Guilford's SOI; and Meeker's "Struc-

ture of the Intellect—Learning Abilities

Test" (SOI-LA) (Meeker and Meeker, 1982),

also based on CaiiU'ord's SOI. Tlie TTCT

is still the most commonly used. It can

be scored for "fluency" (the total num-

ber of relevant responses), "flexibility"

(the number of different categories of rel-

evant responses), "originality" (the rarity

of the responses), and "elaboration" (the

amount of detail in the responses) (Stern-

berg and Lubart, 1999). TTCT tests are

available in both \'crbal (thinking cre-

atiwly with words) and figural (thinking

creatively with pictures) versions (Hickey,

2001). There are seven verbal activities

involving "asking," "guessing causes,"

"guessing consequences," "product im-

provement," "unusual uses," "unusual

questions," and "just suppose" and three

figural activities "picture construction,"

"picture completion," and "lines/circles"

(Cropiey, 2000). Psychometric measures

such as these have been applied to all

four main areas (person, product, pro-

cess, press) of creativity research (Plucker

and Renzulli, 1999).

Critics of the psychometric measure-

ment of creativity cite the lack of predic-

tive validity of such tests. Standard \Q

tests are frequently criticized as being

inaccurate predictors of achievement in

later life, yet they correlate about 0.70

with school grades: by contrast, diver-

gent thinking tests typically correlate

around 0.50 with subsequent achie\'e-

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 example, 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/blue/cottage. Solution: cheese2. railroad/girl/class. Solution: working

3. surprise/line/birthday. 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 more 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,

1970, 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 what 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 the creativity of a painting reads:

"On a scale of 1 to 5, and using your own

subjective 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 also

creative. While it is impossible to summa-

June 2 0 0 4 JOyflflllL OF HOyEflTiSlflG RESEflHCtl 1 9 3


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 1Summary 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 Uses 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 Intellect-Learning 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-point

scale

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 advertising creativity awards

TV commercial popularity, measured by Video Storyboard Test Inc.

Creativity of advertising assessed by expert panel of senior advertising students

Van den Bergh. Reid, and Schorin (1983)

Gough(1992)

Kover. Goldberg, and James (1995)

Bell (1992)

Stone (2000)

1 9 4 DF flDyERIISIflG flESEfiaCH June 2 0 0 4


same limitations as the psychometric ap-

proach, namely the definition or identifi-

cation of appropriate creati\ e tasks to use

in the tests. In addition, it clearly may be

employed only in laboratory conditions,

which ha5 implications for time and cost,

and therefore wouid only be feasible on a

relatively small scale or o\'er an extended

time period.

Measuring Advertising Creativity

ln seeking to measure the creativity of

television commercials, Bell (1992) adopted

a similar approach to Amabiie (19H2), tak-

ing the \iew that the popularity of the

creative product {the television commer-

cial) is a proxy for creativity. Instead of

attempting to measure creati\ ity, the reac-

tion of the target audience to advertising

was measured. The advantage of this is

that there is no need to identify experts,

as any member of the target audience is

an "appropriate judge" (Amabile, 1982).

Stone (2001)) was interested in the relation-

ship between three key aspects of adver-

tising: recall, Ukeability, and creativity. In

a telephone sur\ey, respondents were

asked to name their most liked and their

most disliked television advertisement and

then, separately, these commercials were

rated for creativity by an expert panel.

Seventy percent of "liked" commercials

\\'ere deemed by the panel to be creative,

compared with only 46 percent oi those

"disliked." This clearly provides support

for Bell's method (1992).

There are many other examples of judge

or expert tiu'Lisurements ot" advertisirtg cre-

.itivity. In their 1983 study of the opti-

mum number of creative alternatives to

generate. Van den fJergh, Reid, and Schorin

(1983) recruited a panel of top creative

people to judge creativity. The panel con-

sisted of a creative director, an art direc-

tor, a copy supervisor, and a senior writer.

Kover, Croldberg, and James (1995) used a

similar approach in their stuJy ot tiie

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 industry. 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 award panels con-

sist of advertising executives whtt have

readied national or international promi-

nence in their field, thus meeting this

requirement. 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 judge

has 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 needs of academic

researchers. Many practitioners pre- or post-

test commercials, but this practice is by no

means universal, although there is evi-

dence that it is increasingly common. Of

112 agencies and advertisers 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 90 percent eval-

uated the finished commercial (Belch and

Belch, 2U01). Howe\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 as such by the creative teams

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

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

the account management 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 method of pre-

dicting this judgment.

June 2 0 0 4 JOUHOHL OF flOUEFtTISlOG B E S E H 1 9 5


ENCOURAGING AND ENHANCING

CREATIVITY

I Vople cniploved in a creative cipacity per-

form better under certain conditions, and

many researchers (e.g., Amabile, 1998; An-

derson, 1992, Cummings and Oldhnm, 1997;

Nickerson, 1999) hii\e consequently de-

voted effort to establish how creativity may

be encouraged and enhanced. The gener-

ation of advertising concepts that fulfill ihe

requirements of the client brief and tbe ac-

count nianiij;ement team is a complex pro-

cess, invoK ing the consideration of a large

number of factors and decisions. Davies

(2000) suggested that anything that can be

done to reduce the complexity is worthy of

consideration and recommended the use of

decision-support software. An analytical hi-

erarchy process (AHP), for example, could

be used as a j;roup decision support sys-

tem toenhance tbe ad\ ertising creative brief.

According to Da\ ies, an AHP can facilitate

the creative prcKoss and encourage the gen-

eration of ideas, mainly by organizing, clar-

ifying, and simplifying the decisions that

need to be taken. Creatives may thus be

freed to concentrate their efforts on the cre-

ative task at hand-

Amabile (1998) listed six aspects of man-

agerial practice thai affect creativity. These

are: 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 for

creativity include the amount and quality

of workspace. Although Amabile felt this

was overstated, the workplace, relation-

ships with super\i.sors and colleagues,

agency philosophies, and the nature of

assigned tasks all have a significant im-

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

1994; West and Eord, 2001). One inhibitor

of creativity is fear (Nickerson, 1999). Re-

search has shown, for example, that fear

is the main reason why children may be

One inhibitor of creativity is fear . . . . Fear largeiy results

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-

Murad, 20t12), and younger, unmarried,

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 those

that 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

Oldham, 1997, p. 35). 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,

1983, 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

understand 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

boundaries, 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 provision

of 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 JOyBflBL Df flOUERTISlim RESEflflCtl June 2 0 0 4


vein, Sternberg (2000), rather surprisingly,

and in apparent contradiction of many

creativity researchers, posited that people

are creative not because of any virtue,

innate ability, or circumstance, but be-

cause they ch(x>se to be. He, like Golann

(1963) before him, argued that creativity

is the result of an attitude or set of atti-

tudes, but went on to say that people can

simply decide to adopt these attitudes if

they do not already share them. He sug-

gested 10 "decisiiHis" that people could

take in order to become creative. His pa-

per was pragmatic and primarily con-

cerned with the identificatiitn and

de\ elopment of creative giftedness in chil-

dren but has considerable relevance to

advertising creatives. The 10 "decisions"

are (Sternberg, 2000):

7. Td rcdtfine problem'-^: to attempt fo see

them in ti different wni/ to other people.

1. T[) leuru to nnali/zc iind criticize their

own ideas, înce nobodi/ lias anii/ yivi^

ideas.

3. To sell their kieas: il is naive to assume

that good creative ideas sell them<:elvei:

4. 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/.

5. To have the courage to oiêrcome obsta-

clfs, io face opposition, since truly cre-

atizv ideas are always likely to be opposed.

6. To take risks, and not be tempted to offer

standard, safe solutions.

7. To be willing to grow, and not rest on

their one good creative idea.

8. To believe in themsehvs, because there

will often be times when nobodu else be-

liei'cs in them.

9. To learn to tolerate ambiguiti/. because

ueu> ideas are not ahcai/s inilialhi

successful.

U). 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, He teaches 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 had extensive 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 the European Journal of Market-

ing, the Internationa/ Jaurrial of Advenismg. the Inter-

natlor)al Marketing Review, the Journal ol Advertising,

the Journal of Advertising Research, the Journal of

Creative Behavior, the Journai of Forecasting, and the

Journal of Marketing Management.

REFERENCES

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

.iH\ity: A Consensutil A isessment Technique,"

journal of Personality and Social P^îicholog}/ 43, 5

(1982): 997-1013.

, The Social Pfî/chobgy of Creativiti/. New

York: Springe r-Vt-rla , 1983.

June 2 0 0 4 JOUflllfiL OF [IDllERTlSinG RESEHRCH 1 9 7


. "How tu Kill Creativity." Hannird Busi-

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

ANDERSON, ]. "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.

BAILIN, S. "Can Therf He Creativity witliuut

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

BARRON, \r. Crcativitif ami Personal Fnvihni. New

York: Vnn Nostrand, 1968.

-. Creutitv Person ami Crealiiv Process. New

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

BELCH, G . E., and M. A. BELCH. 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.

BELL, J. A. "Creativity, TV Commerciai Popu-

larity, and Ad\ertising Expenditures." hitrr-

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

BLAIK, M. H. '.\W Empirical Inv»stij;ation of

Advertising Wearin and Wearout." foiirmil of

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

BocART, L., S, ToLLtY, and F. ORENSTEIN. "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):

27-31.

CALLAHAN, C . M. "The Assessment of Creativ-

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

gelo and G. A. Davis, eds. Hoston, MA: Allvn

& Bacon, 1991.

L'HANC. 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.

CRGPLEY, A. J. "[defining and Measuring Cre-

ativity: Are Creativity Tests Worth Using?"

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

CRUTCHFIEI 1), K. S. "Conformity and 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, and

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. OLIJHAM. "Managing

Work Contexts for the High Potential Fm-

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

(1997): 22-38.

DL BONO, 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 <.,. BAMvh. "Attention Deploy-

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

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

DIM ION, 1. "The Triumph of Creativit)' over

Coninuinication." joiirmil of Adivrtising 4, 3

DYKIS, 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.

EINSTEIN, 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.

FL-MURAD, |. "The Relationship Between Risk

Attitude iind Advertising Creativity." DBA the-

sis, Henley Management College/Brunei Uni-

versity, 2002.

, and . C. WEST. "Risk and Cre-

ativity in Advertising." loiiriuil of Marketing Man-

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

EwiNt;, MICHAEL T , |. JL'LIE NAPOLI, and DOUG-

LAS C. WtsT. "Creative Personalities, Processes,

and Agency Philosophies: Implications for Glo-

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

2(2001): 161-70.

BROWFR, R. "TO 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.

198 L Of flOUERTISlOB RESERBCH June 2 0 0 4


FiNKi-:, K., 1. WAIU), and S. SMIII I . Craitivf

Cognition: Tlwory. Research, md Applicalion?. Cam-

bridge, MA: MIT Press, 1992.

CiiiK, VV. "The Management of Croati\'ity."

hilcrihitiouiit joimuil of Advertising 9, 1 (1990):

1-37.

FREEMAN, J. "Emotional Problem,-, of the Gifted

Child." joiirmil of Child Psi/cJiologij ami Psi/chiii-

try 24 (1983): 481-85.

GI.:TZI-:LS, )., and P. JACKSON. Creativity and In-

teiiigence: Expioralion^ with Gifted Stiidentf-. New

York: Wiley, 1962.

GIBSON, L. "What Cin One TV Hxposure Do?"

jouriui! ofAiii'iTli:^ing Re^niixh 36, 2 (1496): 9-!7.

GOLANN, S. "Psychological Study of Creativ-

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

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

tive Check List." journal of i'er^oimlity iDid Social

Psychology 37 (1979): n9S-140[^.

. "Assessment ot Creative Potential in

Psychology and the Development of a Creative

Temperament Scale for the Cl'i." In Advances in

P^\/cliological Measurement, Vol. H, 1. Rosen and

P- McRevnoids, eds. New York: Plenum, 1992

[cited in Cropiey (2000)].

GROSS, I. "An Analytical Approach to the Cre-

ative Aspects of Advertising." Unpublished

Ph.D. thesis, Cleveland, Case Institutt- of Tcch-

noUjgy, 1967.

. "The CriMtivL' A.' pects of Advertising."

Shun Mamigeniciit Review t4, 1 (1472): S3-109.

GUILFORD, J. P. "Creativity." Anu-ricau Psi/eiiol-

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

. The Nature of Htunan luteUigence. New

York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.

, P. R. MERRiriELD, and R. C. WILSON.

Unusual Uses Test. Orange, CA: Sheridan Psy-

chological Services, 1958.

KK R., and C. BENBOW. "Sex Differences

and laterali/atinn in Temporal Lobe Glucose

Metabolism During Mathematical Reasoning."

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

, B. SitGEL, C. TANC, L. ABEI, and M.

BucHSBAUM. "Intelligence and Changes in Re-

gional Cerebral Glucose Metabolic Rate Follow-

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

Ki-y, M. "An Application ut Amabile's Con-

sensual Assessment Technique for Rating the

Creativity of Children's Musical Composi-

tions." journal af Research in Music Education 4.9.,

3 (2001): 2.34-45.

HiKscKMAN, E. C "Role-Based Models of Ad-

\'ertising Creation and Production." iournti! of

Advertising 18, 4 (1989): 42-53.

R, D. "Measurement ot Creativity: Ke-

view and Critique." Journal of Personality As-

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

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

Bi'haviora! Intentions in a Choice Situation."

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

-, and -, "The Prediction ol Behavior

INNAMORATO, G . "Creativit)' in tht? Develop-

ment of Scientific Giftedness: Educational Im-

plications." Roeper Rivirtv 21, 1 (1998): 54-60.

ioiiAR, tdTA VENKATAKAMANI, MDRRIS 15. HOL-

BROOK, and BARBAKA B. STERN. "The Role of

Myth in Creative Advertising Design; Theory,

Process and Outcome." journal of Aiivertising

30, 2 (2001): 1-25.

K, A., D. SLAYDEN, and S. J.

"Real Worlds and Ivory Towers: A Survey of

Top Creative Directors." journalism and Mass

Comnninication Educator 51, Summer (1996):

63-74.

KHATENA, J. "Myth: Creativity is too Difficult

to Measure!" Gifted Child Quarteriy 26 (1982):

21-23.

from Attitudinal and Norn\ati\e Variables." jour-

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

c;, N., and N, .AN[IERSON. "Innovation in

Working Groups." In innovation and Creativity,

at Work, Michael A. West and James L. Farr,

eds. New York: J. Wiley and Sons, 1990.

KILLING, R. "Working Tools." In The Creative

Process: A Si/inposhmi, B. Ghiselin, ed. Berkeley,

CA: Universit\' of Californin Press, 1983 (first

published in 19371,

KusLOW, S., S. L. SASSER, and E. F. RIORDAN.

"What is Creative to Whom and Why?" journal

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

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

"Creativity vs. Effectiveness? An Integrating

Classification for Advertising." journal of Adver-

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

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

York: International Universities Press, 1^52.

GRUBEK, H . E., and D. IJ. WALLACH. "Under-

standing Unique Creative People at Work." In

Hnndbook nfCn'atiz'iti/, R. [. Sternberg, ed. Cam-


-, and "Attitudes and Normative LONDON INTERNATIONAL ADVERTISING AWARDS.

Beliefs as Factors Influencing Behavioral. Inten- "About London international Advertising

tions." journal of Experinieiitiil Sociai i^sydioiogy Awards." [URL: http://www.Haawards.com],

31, 1 (1472)- accessed July 1998.

June 2 0 0 4 JOURflflL flF flOUEflTfSlflG RESEfiflflfi 1 9 9


, C. ). "Evolving Creative Minds: Sto-

ries and Mechanisms." In i-iandbook of Creativ-

ity, R. J. Sternberg, ed. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1999.

MACKINNON, D . "Personality and fhe Realiza-

tion of Creative Potential." Aincriean Psycholo-

gist 20 (1963): 273-81.

MARTINDALE, C . "Biological Bases of Crc.iti\-

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

ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

1999.

MEDNICK, S. A. "The Associative Basis of fho

Creative Process." Psychohgieal Revierv 69 (1962):

220-32.

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

pretation und il^^es. Columbus, OH: Charles &

Merriil, 1969.

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

ing Abilities Test: Evaluation, Leiuiership, and Cre-

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

1982.

MENDELSOHN, G . A. "Associative ahd Atten-

tional Processes in Creative Performance." jour-

nal of Personality 44 (1976): 341-69.

MiCHELL, P. C. N., and H. CATAQUET. "Estab-

lishing the Causes of Disaffection in Agency-

Client Relations." jaurnai of Advertising Research

32, 2 (1992):

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

Practice (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-

HaU, 1991.

, and B. G. VAN DKN BERCH. "Advertising

Creatives Look at Creativity." lournal of Creative

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

Innovation." Psyclwlojiical Builetiii 103, 1 (1988):

27-43.

, M. A. MARKS, M. S. CONNELLEY, S. J.

ZACCARO, and J. Y: JOHNSON. "Domain-based

Scoring of Divergent-thinking Tests: Validation

Evidence in an Occupational Sample." Creativ-

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

Cropiey (20(X))l.

NACLIERT, J. A . E'ssentials of CAS Assessment.

New York: Wiley, 1999 [cited in Naglieri (2001)1.

. "Understanding Intelligence, Gittedness

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

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

Handbook of Creativity, R. ]. Sternberg, cd. Cam-


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

, and I. P. DAS. Cognitive Assessment Sys-

tem. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing, 1997 [cited

in Naglieri (2001)].

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

Handbook of Creativity, R. Stemberg, ed. Cam-


O'CONNOR, G . C , T. K. WILLRMAIN, and J.

MACLACIILAN. "The Value of Competition

.^mong Agencies in Developing Ad Cam-

paigns: Revisiting Cress's ModeL" jonrnnl of

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

OGIIAY, DAVID. Co)ifes?ions of an Advertising Man.

London: Longman, 1964.

. Ogilvi/ on Advertif^ing. London: Orbis,

1983.

OSBORN, A. F. Applied liiiaginalion (rev. ed.).

New York: Scribner's, 1953.

PARNES, S. J. "Aha!" ln Perspectives in Crcntii'-

ity, 1. A. Taylor and |, VV, Cietzels, eds. Chicago,

11.: Aldine, 1975 [cited in White and Smith

), M. D., and S. B. GUSTAFSON. "Cre-

ativity Syndrome: integration. Application, and

PLLICKER, ]. A., and J. S. REN/ULLI. "Psychomet-

ric Approaches to the Study of Creativity." tn

ativity Measurement Has Been Greatly Exag-

gerated: Current Issues, Recent Advances, and.

Future Directions in Creativity Assessment."

Rocper Review 21, 1 (1998): 36-40.

PoLiTZ, A. "Creati\eness and Imagination." jour-

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

REID, L.. K. KINC. and D. DELORME. "Top-

Level Creatives Look at Advertising Creativity

Then and Now." journal of Advertising 27, 2

(1998): 1-16.

, and H. ROTFELD. "Toward an Associa-

tive Model of Advertising Creativity." journal

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

RHODES, M . "Analysis of Creativity." Phi Delta

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

RossiTER, JOHN R., and LARRY PERCY. Advertis-

ing Connnunications & Promotion Management.

New York: McGraw-Hill, 1997.

RoTHENBERCi, R. "Burnett over Bernbach? 'Time'

Doesn't Get Advertising Genius." Advertising

Ag, July 12. 1998.

RUNCO, M . A., and S. M. OKUDA. "The Instruc-

tional Enhancement of the Flexibility and Orig-

inality Scores of Divergent Thinking Tests."

Applied Cognitive Psychology 5 (199U: 435^1 .

„ and S. O. SAKAMOTO. "Experimental Stud-

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

Sternberg, ed. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-

sity Press. 1999.

SCOTT, S. G., and R. A. BRUCE. "Determinants

of Innox'ative Behavior: A Path Mode! of Indi-

vidual Innovation in the Workplace." Academy

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

2 0 0 JOURnfIL OF flDUEHTISfne RESEHRCII June 2 0 0 4


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

FunctH)nal Pniduct Development Teams, Cre-

ativity, and the Inmnativeness of Consumer

Pnxlucts." journai ofMarkihig Ri-search 38 (2001 J:

73-83.

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

bridge University Press, 1999.

, L. A. O'HAKA, AND T. I. LUBART. "Cre-

ativity 3s Investment." California Management

Review 40, 1 (1947): H-2LJ, D. K. "Crt'ativity fmm a Historio-

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

!\- 1. Sternberg, ed. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-Commercials: A New Approach." journal of Ad-

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

SMITH, S., M. WARD, and R. FINKI:, YDS. Thef~ .• f~ ... . I ,- L • 1 1 . * ^ kiRRANCE, E. P. Guidin'i Creative Talent. Ennle-C rrntin' Lognitioti Approach. C .imhritfge, MA: ' 'MIT Pres.s, 1995. ^'•'""^ '^^^"'" ^^' • ' • ' ^ ' " ' i ' ^ ^ ' - ' " ' ' ^ " ' l ^ ^ -

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

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

60-65- Plucker and Ren^-ulli

, and |. V. DAVIDSON, IDS, The Nature of

iy/j., Cambridge, MA: Mil Press, IWS.

, and y. I. LLHAIU, "An liu'estment Theory

ot Creati\-ity and Its Development." iliiinan

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

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

ln\estment Approach to Creativity." Current

Directions in Pstjchologicat Science I, 1 (1942):

, and . Defying the Cn rcrf: Cultivatiiig

Creativity in a Cultiin' of Confiirmity. New York:

I-ree Press. 1995.

, and . "Investing in Creativity.'

American Pst/ehohgist 31 (1996): 677-88.

, and . "The Concept of Creativity:

Prospects anci Paradigms." In tliiiiilbook of Cre-

. "Predicting the Creativity 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.

VAN DEN BERCH, B., L. REID, and G. SCHORIN.

"How Many Creative Alternatives to Gener-

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-

search 26, ft (1986/1987): 21-2B,

WAI 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 the Myth of Ge-

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 in the 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 MICIAK, ami ADRIAN SAKCKANT.

"Advertiser Risk-Orientation and the Opin-

ions and Practices of Advertising Managers."

Internationa! lournal of Advertising 18 (1999):

51-71.

WHITE, 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.

WHITE, G. E. "Creati\ity: The X Factor in Ad-

vertising Theory." journal of Advertising 1, 1

(1972): 28-32.

ZINKHAN, G . "Creafi\-ity in Advertising, Cre-

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

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

June 2 0 0 4 JOURdllL Of HDUEBIISfOG flESEflRClt 2 0 1

the definition and measurement of creativity: what do we know?

Documents