JAAFAR ELMURAD Westminster Business ‘Schoo! University of Westminster [email protected]¢.uk DOUGLAS C. WEST Westminster Business School University of Westminster [email protected] The Definition and Measurement of Creativity: What Do We Know? 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. Cneativery 1s at once the least scientific aspect of advertising and the most important (Reid, King, and DeLorme, 1998), As with other forms of cre- tivity, advertising creativity embraces both “orig. and “innovation” (Fletcher, 1990). To be ful it must have impact, quality, style, and relevance. Ideas must be new, unique, and rele- vant to the product and to the target audience in ‘order to be useful as solutions to marketing com- munications problems. The resultant advertising inal should pass such tests as the Universal Advertis- ing Standards established by D’Arcy Masius Ben: ton & Bowles (Belch and Belch, 1998). This is because a “winning creative idea,” one that stands ‘out from the crowd and is memorable, can have ‘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 su gests itis 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- igs JOUANAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH June 2004 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). Overall, itis 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 ‘encourage it? Before beginning the review, a brief outline of terms is required, “Advertising creativity” is used for the process of producing and developing ad- vertising ideas. It is acknowledged that treat- ments and executions require creativity, indeed even the choice and use of media can be highly creative, but for the purposes of this article the emphasis is on the central 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. ‘These include, for example, art (e.g, Brower, 2000; Kris, 1952), music (eg, Hickey, 2001), science (eg, Innamorato, 1998), education (eg., Free- ‘man, 1983; Naglieri, 2001), management (e., De or: 10.1017/80021849904040097Bono, 1971; King and Anderson, 1990; Sethi, Smith, and Park, 2001), and adver- tising (eg., Gross, 1967, 1972; Hirschman, 1989; Kendrick, Slayden, and Broyles, 1996; Kover, Goldberg, and James, 1995; Mori- arty, 1991; Moriarty and Van den Bergh, 1981). Some observers have noted a de- cline in the level of interest shown in advertising creativity research (e.g., inkhan, 1993). Others maintain that the topic continues to receive 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 of 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 what 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 of 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 cave ats into account, the results still point to 4 significant expansion in the early 1990s and then a fall back in the late 1990s, Unfortunately, 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- DEFINITION AND MEASUREMENT OF CREATIVITY Creativity 80 oS $ Marketing z — Creative/creativty in Tile = = Marketing in Title Figure 1 Number of Articles with Titles of “Creative” or “Creativity” Compared with “Marketing” Cited in Proquest® driepoulos (2001), and Koslow, Sasser, and Riordan (2008). WHAT DO WE KNOW? Definitions Creativity is often described in such terms as “creative thinking” or “ability,” “prob- em solving," “imagination,” or "innova- tion.” Many definitions involve an aspect of problem solving, where the solution t0 the problem requires insight (e.., Simon- ton, 1999; Stembeng and Davidson, 1995). Most involve an aspect of “newness” oF “originality” for example, “Creativity is the ability to produce work that is novel (i. original, unexpected)” (Sternberg and Lubart, 1999). Originality is a required but insufficient condition for creativity the work must also be of value; that i, it should be “appropriate (Le, useful, adap- tive concerning task constraints)” (Stern- berg and Lubart, 1999, p. 3). This combi- nation of “novelty” and “appropriate- ness” or “usefulness” has met with ‘widespread acceptance (e.g,, Amabile, 1985; 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, 1995), “Effective” advertising and “creative” ad- ising are the two concepts that most fre- ‘quently emergein 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 2004 JOURNRL OF ADUERTISING RESEARCH 189DEFINITION AND MEASUREMENT OF CREATIVITY Creativity in advertising differs from creativity in the arts mainly in its purpose. Advertising creativity must achieve objectives set by others—t! case in the arts count executives view advertising as a means to achieve a specifi objective, such 1s 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 guicled by research (Bell, 1992). Creative teams or individuals, on the other hand, tended to see the adyertise- mentasan opportunity to demonstrate their ‘own skills and aesthetic valuesand thereby topromote their careers (Hirschman, 1989). Pethaps itis the friction between these con: flicting interests that results in great adver- tising, but ithas been found that creativity is necessary for effectiveness and that itis this that “pushes the message into view. cers’ minds” (Kover, Goldberg, and James, 1995, p. 29). ‘Some 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 nota uni- tary concept at all. It has been argued that there are different types of creativity: re sponsive, expected, contributory, and pro- active (Unsworth, 2001), or that it consists, ‘ofa number of elements, each of which must be present for creativity to take place (eg, (Csikszentmihalyi, 1988; Rhodes, 1961).Cre- ativity in advertising differs from creativ ity in the arts mainly in its purpose Advertising creativity must achieve objec: ally the case in the arts, Success in the arts is tives set by others—this is not us achieved when the creative products are not usually the deemed “pleasing” in some way whereas in advertising tis not sufficient to “please” for always necessary to do so. To be suc- cessful, creative advertising must first be noticed and then have a specified effect on the viewer. If itis not noticed, or if this ef fect is not achieved, the creative endeavor failed. Creativity involves newness but this need is considered to hav not be “new to the world.” Leo Burnett, for example, defined advertising creativi “he 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 ina new way can not only be creative, itis 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 ving advertisements and commercials.” This definition, based on Dil- 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 creativity and and problem: 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; Martindale, 1999; Mumford and Gustafson, 1988;Sternberg 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 areset, 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 process 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 i is not noticed, or if this effect is not achieved, the cre- ative endeavor is considered to have failed. 290 JOURIAL OF ADUERTISING RESEARCH June 2004DEFINITION AND MEASUREMENT OF CREATIVITY advertising creativity is a special form of creativity and differs from others in that “originality and imagina- tion must operate solving context.” Theorie Underpinning any definition of advertis- ing creativity is a mental model. The three primary theories of creativity are: (1) Pri- mary Process Cognition, 2) Defocused Attention, and (3) Associative Hierarchies (Martindale, 1999, pp. 138-39), Primary Process Cogs Kris (1952) and postulates that creative jon dates from individuals are more able to switch be- tween primary and secondary cognitive modes, primary being the mode of dream- and hypnosis. “Tt is autistic, free-associative, analogical” (Martindale, 1999, p. 138), and a probable explanation of Kipling’s (1937/1985) "Dae mon” residing in the subeonscious mind, ing, reverie, psychosis of Freudian psychology (Sternberg, and Lubart, 1999), Secondary process cogni- tion, by contrast, “is the abstract, logical, reality-oriented thought of waking con sciousness” (Martindale, 1999, p. 138). Cre- ative 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 individual is able to keep in min at one time. The greater this number, the more likely it is that the person can make meaningful and useful combinations and thus formulate creative ideas. There is evidence to support the hypothesis that less creative people have more narrow~ hin a goal-directed and problem- focused attention than do those who are more creative (Dewing and Battye, 1971; Dykes and MeGhie, 1976). The theory of Associative Hierarchies was first proposed by Mednick in 1962 He stated that creativity is an associative process involving, “the ability or ten- dency which serves to bring otherwise mutually remote ideas into contiguity [to] facilitate creative solution.” This 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 Rotfeld, 1976) Ifa person can only give a narrow range ‘of answers in response to divergent think- ing tests, he or she is said to have a steep associative hierarchy. Conversely, a wide range of answers indicates a flat 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 pro- 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- larl concerned with establishing the re- lationship between associative ability, attitude, and creative ability, and devel- ‘oped a conceptual model to show how this might work in the advertising, con text. In accordance with Mednick (1962) and Mendelsohn (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 Martindale (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 Stemberg, O'Hara, and Lubart (1997) proposed an “Investment Theory of Cre- ty." Their proposition is based on con- fluence theory, which suggests that creative people are willing to "buy low and sell high” in the realm of ideas. That is, they pursue (invest in) ideas that are of litle interest to other people, or are unheard of, but that they believe have “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 for has presented a number of challenges. First to be mentioned has to be Rhodes (1961) who provided the first widel quoted creative typology. He argued that creativity does not occur in a vacuum, instead it is demonstrated by (1) the cre ative person, who, by means of (2) the rement by advertising researchers creative process: produc (3) the creative product, in response to the macro/micro June 2004 JOURNAL OF ADUERTISING RESEARCH 192.DEFINITION AND MEASUREMENT OF CREATIVITY environment in which he or she is lo- cated, which he called (4) the creative press. Plucker and Renzulli (1999) further sepa- rate “press” into “environment” and “per- suasion,” but the distinctions are hard to disentangle. Thus knowledge of “creativ- ity” may be gained by studying 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 quality and/or quantity of the creative product. The process may be Inferred by observing the person and. the product in combination, whilst the press may be studied for its effect on the other three. Following from Rhodes, Sternberg and Lubart (1999) have outlined a sever-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 your Daemon is in charge, do not think consciously. Drift, voail, and obey.” (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 (ef. environ- ment or press) conducive to divergent thinking. De Bono (eg, 1971, 1985, 1992) has been the leading. proponent of this approach. The Psychodynamic approach (3) is based on the Freudian belief that creativity results from the resolution of 192 Il 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- chology, 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 as 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 are not stricly-speaking, psychomet- tic, 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 (eg,, Finke, Ward, and Smith, 1992; Smith, Ward, and Finke, 1995; Sternberg and Davidson, 1995) sug- ‘gest that there are two phases to crea thought: the generative phase and the 6 ‘concerns the notion that creativity is more prevalent in certain personality types and exploratory phase. Social-Person: L OF ADUERTISIG RESERBCH June 2004 in particular sociocultural situations (Am- abile, 1983; Barron, 1968, 1969; Eysenck, 1993; Gough, 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, unconventionality, the ability to think in a particular man- Finally, the Confluence approach (7) isbased on the idea that creativity can only take place if several components.are present. ‘These are motivation, domain-relevant Knowledge and abilities, and creativity- relevant skills (Amabile, 1983), These “creativity-relevant skills” include “(a) a cognitive style that involves coping with ner).” complexities and breaking one’s mental set during problem solving; (b) knowledge of heuristics for generating novel ideas, such as trying a counter-intuitiveapproach; and (©) 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, person: biographical inventories, teacher nom- inations, peer nominations, supervisor rat- ings, judgments of products, eminence, and self-reported creative activities and achievements. grouped into the two broad categories of psychometric tests (the first four) and ex- pert opinion (the remaining six). inventories, These can be furtherPsychometric Tests The first creativity tests to be used were those that followed Guilford’s 1950 ad. dress. Often referred to as divergent think- ing tests, they included Guilford’s “Unusual Uses Test” (Guilford, Merri field, and Wilson, 1958); his “Structure of the Intellect” ‘Test (SON) (Guilford, 1967); Medic nick, 1962); Torrance's “Tests of Creative “Thinking” (TTCT) (Torrance, 1974), based ‘on Guilford’s SOL; and Mecker’s “Struc: ture of the Intellect—Learning Abilities Test” (SOL-LA) (Meeker and Meeker, 1982), also based! on Gullford’s SOL The TTCT ll the most commonly used. It can be scored for “fluency” (the total num- ber of relevant responses), “flexibility” (the number of different categories of re: 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 verbal (thinking cre: atively with words) and figural (thinking ‘creatively with pictures) versions (Hickey, 2001), involving “asking,” “guessing causes,” product im ‘unusual uses,” “unusual “Remote Associates Test” (Med There are seven verbal activities “guessing, consequences, provement," questions,” and “just suppose” and three figural activities “picture construction,” “picture completion,” and “lines /circles” (Cropley, 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). Crities of the psychometric measure- ment of creativity cite the lack of predic- tive validity of such tests. Standard 1Q 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 achiev DEFINITION AND MEASUREMENT OF CREATIVITY ment (Cropley, 2000). Aspects of some of these “paper and pen” creativity tests are vulnerable to other criticism. Med- nnick’s (1962) “Remote Associates Test” (RAT), for example, was a self-completion divergent-thinking creativity test in which subjects were required to suggest a fourth word that is in some way “remotely as- sociated” with three given words. For example: 1. rat/blue/cottage. Solution: cheese 2, railroad /gitl/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 itis cultu 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 specific. from the lack of a consensus about the true workings of the creative process, his logie was that because tests have predeter- mined correct answers and originality isa requirement of creativity xiving “correct” answers in a creativity test could not be creative. At a more spe~ cific level, critics have also questioned whether tests measure creative thinking for even the ability to become creative (e.g. Weisberg, 1993), and the vulneral ity of the tests to administration, scoring, and training effects, These include the test conditions: for example, whether or rot 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 be “creative.” It has been shown that factors any respondent such as these influence originality and fluency scores (Chand and Runco, 1992; Runco and Okuda, 1991), Expert Opinion ‘There is a view that the only reliable way to identify creativity is by evaluating the creative product (eg, Ballin, 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- y. Their subjects were then rated on these 10 scales by expert judges, in this case instructors of the Ad- vertising Creative Strategy and Tacti course. Inspired by Golann (1963), who had found a correlation between attitude sure creative abil and creative ability, the instrument used was based on leek and Fishbein’s (1969, 1970, 1972) atitudinal model. It assumed “that a person's attitude toward the act of «creating a commercial isa function of the act's perceived consequences and its value to the person” (Reid and Rotield, 1976, p. 28). After analysis, the results were founc! to support the centrality of associa- tive ability to advertising creativity: Amabile (1982) circumvented the prob- Jems 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- tivity” of creative products using their ‘own individual criteria and their own def initions of creativity. A typical CAT item for rating the creativity ofa painting reads: “On a scale of 10.5, 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 ageee that a given product is creative, then it ean and must be accepted as such, By extension, the person who created the product is also White it creat ible to summa- impo: June 2004 JOURIRL OF ROUERTISING RESERACH 193DEFINITION AND MEASUREMENT OF CREATIVITY. rize all of the creativity research, Table 1 shows the primary studies of creativity by author and measure used. The mea- sures fall largely into the two broad cat- cegories of psychometric measurement and expert opinion, with a few studies using a combination of approaches, TABLE 1 Biometric, A third and quite separate approach to creativity measurement is the Biometric Approach, which involves 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, Haier etal, 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 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) __.Nagiler| and Das (2997) NNaglier (1999) Combination Reid and Rotfeld (1976) Mumford et al. (1998) Primarily expert opinion Amabile (1982) Van den Bergh, Rei Gough (1992) _Kover, Gold Bell (1992) Stone (2000), and James (1995) Remote Associates Tost Unusual Uses Test Torrance's Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT) Four creativity measures: word association, unusual uses, hidden shepes, make-up problems A series of five untimed divergent thinking tests Structure of the Intellect ($0!) Structure of the Intellect-Learning Ablities Test (SOLA) Torrance's Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT) Cognitive Assessment System (CAS) Planning, Attention, Simultaneous, and Successive cognitive tests (PASS): Stroop test Medhnick’s Remote Associates Test Attitude Scales Expert Opinion Creative Ability Profle Scale “Guessing Consequences” subtest of TTCT, scored by panel of expert judges using S-point scale Consensual Assessment Technique: creative products assessed by expert judges, using own definitions of creativity Creative Personality Scale One Show TV commercial popularity, measured by Video Storyboard Test inc. ‘and Schorin (1983) Creativity of advertising assessed by panel of top advertising creative people Creativity of advertising assessed by expert panel of senior advertising students 294 JOURNAL OF ROVERTISING RESEARCH June 2004same limitations as the psychometric ap- proach, namely the definition or identiti- cation of appropriate creative tasks to use in the tests. In addition, it clearly may be employed only in laboratory conditions, ‘which has implications for time and cost, and therefore would only be feasible on a relatively small scale or over an extended time period, Measuring Advertising Creativity In seeking to measure the creativity of television commercials, Bell (1992) adopted a similar approach to Amabile (1982), tak- ing the view that the popularity of the creative product (the television commer- cial) is a proxy for creativity. Instead of attempting to measure creativity, the renc- 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 (2000) was interested in the relation ship between three key aspects of adver- tising: recall, likeability, and creativity. In a telephone survey, respondents were asked to name theit 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 were deemed by the panel to be creative, compared with only 46 percent of those “disliked.” This clearly provides support for Bell's method (1992). There are many other examples of judge or expert measurements of advertising cre- ativity. In their 1983 ‘mum number of creative alternatives to generate, Van den Bergh, 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 study of the opti- tor, a copy supervisor, and a senior writer Kover, Goldberg, and James (1995) used a similar approach in their study of the DEFINITION AND MEASUREMENT OF CREATIVITY relationship between creativity and effec- tiveness. They examined advertising that hhad 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 ‘most coveted in the industry. Kover, Gold berg, and James (1995) selected this award as evidence of creativity: thus advertising, how creative award is one of the that had received this award was deemed ‘This is consistent with Csi szentmihalyi (1999), who argued that ere ativity is “the ability to add somethin new to the culture” (p. 314) such that itis “sanctioned by some group entitled 10 make decisions as to what should or should not be included in the domain” (p. 315). For someone to be creative their ‘work must be recognized as such by those etent in the field, who have reached higher levels of their profession (Csikszent- rmihalyi, 1999), Creative award panels con- sist of advertising executives who have reached national or international promi- rence in their field, thus meeting this requirement, Advertising award panels operate in different ways. adopted by London International Adver- tising Awards (1998) is reproduced here for illustration: “creative.” The process “Each judge receives, by courier, no ‘more than two hours of material on videotape, slide, audiotape, printed proofs or actual packaging, Each judge hhas several weeks, not several mi tutes, to reach a decision. And change that decision, several times, so we've been told. Our judges are the top ranked, most highly awarded profes- sionals in their disciplines. AS you would expect, they bring a truly inter- national perspective to their task. Al entries are judged for their creativ- ity, originality and production values. Intoractive entries are judged from the internet for their creativity, concept ecution, functionality, interactivity and overall impact. Score sheets are faxed back to oui office for tabulation. Even the jud ners are. Only the Jury Chairmen and our staff do.” es don't know who the win The measures of advertising creativity discussed thus far are “post-hox sures: they have been used to evaluate the creativity of commercials that have a ready featured in campaigns and have been seen by their target audiences in or der to reward outstanding creative 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- lence 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, over 97 percent evalu ated the rough version, and 90 percent eval- uated the finished commercial (Belch and Belch, 2001). However, 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, ancl Orenstein, 1970; Gibson, 1996), but there is little indication that prac- titioners employ any formalized systems or techniques specifically for the direct me, surement of advertising creativity. Instead, itis likely that winning creative solutions are recognized as such by the creative teams themselves, using the “Aha!” factor (Par nes, 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 sulfi- ciently creative to be retained (White and ‘Smith, 2001), butitis surely in theagency's interest to havean objective method of pre dicting this judgment. June 2004 JOURNAL OF ROVERTISING RESEARCH 195DEFINITION AND MEASUREMENT OF CREATIVITY ENCOURAGING AND ENHANCING CREATIVITY People employed ina ereative capacity per- form better under certain conditions, and many researchers (e.g., Amabile, 1998; An- dderson, 1992; Cummings and Oldham, 1997; Nickerson, 1999) have consequently de- voted effort to establish how creativity may be encouraged and enhanced. The genet= ation of advertising concepts that fulfill the roquirements of the client brief and the ac- ‘count management team is a complex pro- ess, involving 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. Ananalytical hi- cerarchy process (AHP), for example, could be used as a group decision support sys- tem to enhance the advertising creative brief According to Davies, an AHP can facilitate the creative process and encourage the gery eration of ideas, m ly by organizing, clar- lfying, 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 that 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 time 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 supervisors and colleagues, agency philosophies, ancl the nature of assigned tasks all have a significant im- pact on creativity (eg., Scott and Bruce, 1994; West and Ford, 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 inl tor of creat y is fear... . Fe: largely results from the degree of risk perceived. This includes the risk of failure, ridicul reluctant to express their ideas to others (Freeman, 1983). Fear largely results from the degree of risk perceived. This in- cludes the risk of failure, ridicule, and the exposure of limitations. There is no rea- son to believe that this is any different for adults, and people who are more susce} tible to pressure to conform have indeed been found to be less creative (Crutch- field, 1962). The positive relationship be- tuween risk-taking and creative achievement in advertising is now established (El- Murad, 2002), 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 (E-Murad, 2002). Managers should encourage employees—especially those that do not fit this profile—to take cre- ative risks by providing their staff with a conducive work environment and “sur rounding them by a context that nurtures their creative potential” (Cummings and Oldham, 1997, p. 35). Tis includes a social environment 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 post Intrinsic motivation, can thus have an im- ve effect on mediate effect on performance (Amabile, 1983, 1998), Supe 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 isors should be sup- understand and appreciate (Fletcher, 1990). ‘These guidelines and boundaries are im- 196 JOURNAL OF ADUERTISING RESEARCH June 2004 and the exposure of limitations. portant, as, without them, the intellectual indepenclence that is essential for creativ- 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 nenconfor- amity" 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 flesiblity 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 (eg, Brower, 2000; King and Anderson, 1990; Sethi, Smith, and Park, 2001). 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 “dic 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 advertise ing, when he established the concept of creative teams in his agency, matching and pairing copywriters with art direc: tors (Rothenberg, 1998). Anderson (1992) bel ative people are constrained by their be- ligf in a series of myths about creativity, including that itis “too big to handle” or that it is only for geniuses (see also Johar, Holbrook, and Stern, 2001). In a similar ved that uncre-vein, Stembeng (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 choose to be. He, like Golann (1963) before him, argued that creativity Js 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 “decisions” that people could take in order to become creative. His pa- per was pragmatic and primarily con- cerned with the identification and development of creative giftedness in chil- dren but has considerable relevance to advertising creatives. The 10 “decisions” are (Sternberg, 2000}: 1. To redefine problems: to attempt to see them in a different way to other people. 2. To learn to analyze and criticize their nun ideas, since nobody has only good ideas. 3. To sell their iden: itis naive to assume ‘that good creative ideas sell themselees 4. To recognize that knozoledge is a double- edged sword: itis not possible to be cre- ative with insufficient knowledge, but too uch knowledge can hinder creativity 5. To have the courage to overcome obsta- cles, to face opposition, since truly ere ative ideas are alteays likely t0 be cpposed. 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 iden. 8. To beliewe in themselves, because there will often be times when nobody else be- Tiewes in them, 9. To learn to tolerate ambiguity, because new ideas are not always initially successful 10, Finally, since research has shown that people are at their most creative when they are doing something they love, peo DEFINITION AND MEASUREMENT OF CREATIVITY ple should find out what they love to do, ‘and do it Most of these points will be familiar to 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- . 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 creativity involves the concep tualization and production of an object from new or existing components in a novel way that is also relevant to the tesk in hand. Developing such an object ‘may involve some form of switching be- tween primary and secondary cognitive ‘modes in a defocused way, but the use Of association is likely to be central to the process. The proc 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 applied and prac- titioner research tends toward the use of expert opinion in some form (be that se- of advertising nior advertising creatives, advertising 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 those used by other social scientists. Practitioner measurement, how- ever, is largely confined to annual awards ceremonies: there is litle evidence of cre- tivity measurement as part of the pro- cess of developing advertising. Given that clients select and retain agencies on the basis of their perceived creativity, this is somewhat surprising, Taken as a whole, the evi ‘couraging and enhancing creativ 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 env’ ronment but can be rectified by appropriate changes and investments, while individ- uals can be encouraged to have a more positive attitude toward creative risk: taking. @ under- Juaran Ec Mura (054) 6 chit of marhating an busiress strategy at Westminster Business Schoo Lnwersty of Westminster London. He teaches ac ‘anced ravketing practi and sage marketing 0 tot undergraduate and MA students His reseaen Intrests are curently focused on the relationship botweon risk attitude and advertising cratviy. Por toning the University. ne nad extensive ne rational marketing experience at a serio eel wih ‘Dovotas Wes (Ph. Is professor of marketing at Westminster Business School Unersty of Westmin stor London His articles have appeared in many ‘ublations, nluding the Ewepean Journal of Markt ing th eternal Jura o Aavertsing, te ne. ‘atonal MarkotingRevow, the Jura! of Avert, ‘he Journal of Abortsing Resoarch, the Jounal of (lenis Baavi,the Jour of erecting, andthe burr of Marketing Management REFERENCES AManite, TM. “The Social Peychology of Cre- tivity: A Consensual Assessment Technique.” Journal of Pesonaity and Socal Peyhology 43, 5 (0982) 997-1013. —. The Social Psychology of Cratvity. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1983 June 2004 JOURNAL OF ADUERTISING RESEARCH 197DEFINITION AND MEASUREMENT OF CREATIVITY — “How to Kill Creativity” Hareunt Busi 1988): 76-87. ness Review, 76,5 ANDERSON, J. “Weinder than Fiction: The Real- ity and Myths of Creativity” Academy of Man- agement Executive 6, 4 (1992): 40-47. AxpniorouLos, C. "Determinants of Organisa: ional Creativity: A Literature Review.” Ma ‘agement Decision 38, 10 (2001): 834-40. BAIN, S. “Can There Be Creat Creation?" Interchange 15, 2 (1980) 13-22. without BaRnoN, F.Crvtoity and Personal Freon, New York: Van Nostrand, 1968. — Creative Person and Creatce Process. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1969 Bructy,G. E, and M. A. Betcn, Advertising Promotion, an Integrated Marketing Consnunica tions Perspective (International ed). New York: Irwin MeGraw-Hill 1998, ond Advertsing and Promotion, a Integrated Marketing Commnications Perspective (ih Ea, International Fa.). New York: Irwin McGraw-Hill, 200 Brut, J. A. "Creativity, TV Commercial Popu: lavty, andl Advertising Expenditures” Inter ational Journal of Advertising 11,2192}: 165-73, Busi M. H. “An Empirical Investigation of Advertising Wearin and Wearout." Journal of Advertising Research 28, 6 (2988): 45-50. Bocarn, One Little Ad Can Do" Journal of Advertsing Research 10, 4 (1970). 3-13. 1S Tovtiy, and F-Onewsrens. "What Brower, R. “To Reach a Star: The Creativity of Vincent van Gogh" High Ability Studies 11,2 (2000): 179-208, Buawerr, L. “Keep Listening to That Wee, Small Voice.” In Rentings in Advertsing and Promotion Strategy, Arnold M. Barban and C. H. Sandage, feds. Homewood, IL: Richard D- Irwin, 1968, Buzzes, R.D. "Predicting Short-Term Changes Jn Market Share as a Function of Advertising Strategy” furl of Marketing Rescue 1,3 (1968) 27-31 Canta ity” In Handlvok of Gifted Education, N. Colan- glo and G. A. Davis, eds. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon, 1991 N.C. M. “The Assessment of Creativ- CHAND, Ly and M.A. RuNCO. “Problem Find {ng Skills as Components in the Creative Pro- cess." Personality and Individual Differences V4 (41992): 155-6. Crortsy, A. J. “Defining and Measuring Cre ity: Are Creativity Tests Worth Using? Roeper Review 23, 2 (2000): 72-80. CrurcustetD, R$. “Conformity ane Creative Thinking.” In Contemporary Approaches to. Cre ative Thinking, H. Gruber, G. Terell, and M. Wertheimer, eds. New York: Atherton, 1962 CConeszesrranatyt, M. “Society, Culture, and Person: A Systems View of Creativity” In The Nature of Creativity, Sternberg, R., ed. Cam bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988, “Implications of a Systems Perspective for the Study of Creativity” In Hondbook of Cratvity, R. Sternverg, ed. Cambridge: Cam- bridge University Press, 1999 ‘Communes, A, and G. OLpuaM. “Managing, Work Contexts for the High Potential Em- ployee.” California Mangement Review 40,1 (1997): 22-38 Daviss, M. “Using an Analytical Hierarchy Process in Advertising, Creativity” Crativity and bnnocation Management 9, 2 (2000) 100-108, 298 JOURNAL OF ROVERTISING RESERACH June 2004 Dr BoNo, E Lateral Thinking for Mamagement New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971 — Six Thinking Hots. Boston, MA: Little, Brown, 1985. — Serious Cratoity: Using the Power of Lat- ‘eral Thinking 10 Cremte New Meas. New York: Harper Collins, 1992 Dewine, K, and G. BartyE. “Attention Deplo ‘ment and Non-Verbal Fluency.” Jounal of Per sonality and Socal Peycology 17 (1971): 214-18. Duiti0N, T. “The Triumph of Creativity over Communication” Journal of Advertising 4, 3 1975}: 15-18, Dyxes, M,, and A, MCGHE, “A Comparative Study of Attentional Strategies in Schizophren- {cs and Highly Creative Normal Subjects.” Brit {sh Journal of Payeietry 128 (1976) 50-56 Eixstein, A. “Autobiographical Notes,” In The Litrary of Living Plilosophers, VI, Albert Ein- stein: Phlosoper Scientist, P- Schilpp, ed. and translator. New York: Open Court Publishing Company, 1946. EL-Muzan, J. “The Relationship Between Risk Attitude and Advertising Creativity.” DBA the- sis, Henley Management College/ Brunel Uni versity, 2002 — and Doucias C. West. “Risk and Ce tivity in Advertising.” Journal of Marketing Man- agement 19, 5-6 (2003): 657-73. Ewin, Micuatt TJ. Junie NaPout,and Dous- Las. Wesr. “Creative Personalities, Processes, and Agency Philosophies: Implications for Glo- bal Advertisers.” Creativity Research Journal 13, 2 (001: 161-70, Eysencx, H. “Creativity and Personality: ATheo- retical Perspective." Psychological Enquiry 4, 3 (1993): 147-78Finxs, R, T. Waxo, and S. Suir, Create CCogition: Theory, Resewe,and Applications. Cam bridge, MA: MIT Press, 1992. Furreitr W. “The Management of Creativity” International Journal of Adcertsing 9, 1 (1990) 17. Ferewan, J. “Emotional Problems ofthe Gifted Child.” Journal of Child Psychology and Psych: try 24 (1983): 481-85 Gerzes, J, and P. Jackson. Cretiity ant bn teigence: Explorations wit Gifted Students, New York: Wiley, 1962, Grason, L. “What Can One TV Exposure Do?” Journal of Advertising Research 36, 2 (1996): 9-17. GoLAny, 5. “Psychological Study of Creatie- ity” Peylnlogical Bulletin 0 (1963): 548-65. Gove, H. “A Creativity Seale forthe Adjee- tive Chock List.” Journal of Personality and Social Peyehology 37 (1979): 1398-1405, — “Assessment of Creative Potential in Psychology and the Development of a Creative ‘Temperament Seale for the CPL" In Advances it Psychological Monstiremant, Vo. 8, J, Rosen and P. McReynolds, eds. New York: Plenum, 1992 [cited in Cropley (2000) Guoss, "An Analytical Approach to the Cre- ative Aspects of Advertising” Unpublished PhD. thesis, Cleveland, Case Insitute of Tech ology, 1967, —. "The Creat fe Aspects of Advertising.” ‘toon Managenient Review 14, 1 (1972): 83-100. Gwuse, HE, and D. B. WALLACE, “Under standing Unique Creative People at Work." In Handbook of Creativity, R}. Sternberg, ed. Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999, DEFINITION AND MEASUREMENT OF CREATIVITY Guits0KD, J.P. “Creativity.” American Psyt- gist 5 (1950): 444-54, The Nature of Human fotelligence. Neve York: McGraw-Hill, 1967 PR, Meeirie.p, and R. Unusual Uses Test. Orange, CA: Sheridan Psy chological Services, 1958. C. Wuson, Hater, R, and C, Bevsow. “Sex Differences and Lateralization in Temporal Lobe Glucose Metabolism During, Mathematical Reasoning, Developmental Neuropsychology 1 (1995): 404-14. —, B. Siport, ©. Tanc, Le Amst, and M. Buchsbaum. “Intelligence and Changes in Re- ‘gional Cerebral Glucose Metabolic Rate Follow- ing Learning,” tnteligence 16 (1992) 415-26. Hicety, M.“An Application of Amabile's Con- sensual Assessment Technique for Rating the Creativity of Children’s Musical Composi- tions.” Journal of Research in Music Exuention 49, 3 (2001): 234-45. Hiascusaw, EC. “Role-insed Models of Ad= vertising Creation and Production.” Journal of Aoortising 18, 4 (1989) 42-53, Hocevan, D. “Measurement of Creativity: Re- View and Critique, sessment 45,5 (1981): 450-64 Journal of Personality As lcex, A., and M. Fisiety. “The Prediction of Behavioral Intentions in a Choice Situation." Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 5 (1969). and —. “The Prediction of Behavior from Attitudinal and Normative Variables" Jour ral of Experimental Social Peyhology 6 (1970) —, and —, “Attitudes and Normative Beliefs as Factors Influencing Behaviogal Inten= tions.” Journal of Experimental Social Peyhology 21,1 (1972), byxamonaro, G. “Creativity in the Develop- ment of Scientific Giftedness: Educational In plications." Rooper Revie 21,1 (1998): 54-60. Jouan, Grea Venxaranascant, Monts B. Hot: nRoOK, and BaROARA B. Stee. “The Role of Myth in Creative Advertsing, Design: Theory, Process and Outcome.” Jourual of Advertising 30, 2 omy: 1-25, Kenrick, A.D. Stave, and S.J. BRovces, “Real Worlds and Ivory Towers: A Survey of Top Creative Directors" Journlisn and Mass Communication Educator $1, Summer (1996) 6374 Katarina, J. “Myth: Creativity is too Difficult to Measure!” Gifted Child’ Quarterly 26 (1982) aia. KING, N,, and N. ANDERSON. “Innovation in Working Groups." In bmoention and Creatcity 1a! Work, Michael A. West and James L. Fa feds. New York: J. Wiley ancl Sons, 1980 KIPLinG, R. “Working Tools Process: A Symposium, B. Ghselin ed. Berkeley, (CA: University of California Press, 1985 (frst published in 1937) In The Creative Kostow, S, 5. L Sasser, and EE, RIORDAN. “What is Creative to Whom and Why?" fourtal of Advertsing Resear 43 1 (2003): 96-110, Kover, A.J, M. Govonena, and W. L. JAMES. “Creativity vs, Eifectiveness? An Integrating ‘Classification for Advertsing” Journal of Adver- tising Reser 35,6 (1995): 29-40. nis, F. Paycoanalytic Explorations in Ar. New York: Intemational Universities Pres, 1952 LONDON INTERNATIONAL ADVERTISING AWARDS “About London International Advertising Awards” [URL: hip: //wwwiliaawards.com], accessed July 1998 June 2004 JOURDAL OF ADUERTISING RESEARCH 199DEFINITION AND MEASUREMENT OF CREATIVITY LuMspEN, C. J. “Evolving Creative Minds: Sto- ries and Mechanisms.” In Handbvck of Cratio- ity, RJ. Sternberg, ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998 MacKinnon, D. “Personality and the Realiza- tion of Creative Potential.” American Psyclo- st 20 (1965): 273-81 Mantexpate, C. "Biological Bases of Creativ- ity” In Handbook of Creativity, R. J. Sternberg, fed, Cambridge: Cam 1999, idge University Press, Mapatek, S. A. “The Associative Basis of the Creative Process.” Peyhological Reviw 69 (1962): 220-22 Mesxer, M. Tie Structure of Intell pretation and Uses. Columbus, OH: Charles & Merrill, 1969, Its Inter rand R. Mieke, Structuretllet Lear ing Abilities Test: Eoaluation, Lendership, and Cre- ative Thinking, El Segundo, CA: SOI Institute, 1982 Menpatsoun, G. A. “Associative and Atte: tional Processes in Creative Performance.” our rl of Personality 44 (1976): 341-6. Macuets, B.C. Ni, and H. Caraguer, “Estab- lishing the Causes of Disaffection in Agency~ Client Relations” journal of Advertising Research 32, 2 (1992): 41-48, Monta, SE, Crontve Advertising: Thoory & Practice (2nd ed). Englewood Cliffs, N}: Prentice Hall, 1991, - and B. G. VAN DEN Bexci. “Advertising Creatives Look at Creativity” Joumal of Cantice Behuviowr 18,3 (1984) 162-74, ‘Muwroxo, M.D, and $8. B. GUSTAFSON. “Cre- tivity Syndrome: Integration, Application, and Innovation.” Psychologica! Bulletin 108, 1 (1988) 248. M.A. Manas, M.S, Cowwetuey, § J Zaccano, and J. F. JOUNGON. "Domain-based ‘Scoring of Divergent-thinking Tests: Validation Evidence in an Occupational Sample.” Creniv ity Research Journal 11 (1998). 151-68 ited in Cropley (2000). Nactient, J. A. Essentials of CAS Assessment New York: Wiley, 1999 [cited in Nagliei (2001) “Understanding Intelligence, Giftedness and Creativity Using the PASS Theory.” Rovper Review 23, 3 (2001): 151-57. 1 and J. P. Das. Cognitive Assessment Sys fem. Nasea, IL: Riverside Publishing, 1997 [cited in Naglicri (2001), Niexensox, RS. “Enhancing Creativity” In Handbook of Creativity, R. Sternberg, ed. Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999, O'Connor GC, TR, WinteMAIN, and J MacLacntaw. “The Value of Competition Among Agencies in Developing Ad Cam- paigns: Revisiting Gross's Model." Journal of ‘Abdertsing 25,1 (1996): 51-62. Gcatvy, Davip. Confessions of an Advertising Man. London: Longman, 1964 —. Ogitey om Advertising. London: Orbis, 198, ‘Oswonn, A. F Applied Imagination (rex. ed) New York: Scribner's, 1953 Parnes, S.J. “Aha!” In Perspectives in Crentio- ity, LA. Taylor and J. W. Getzels, eds. Chicago, IL: Aldine, 1975 feited in. White and. Smith (aon), Puucxen J. A.-and J.S. ReNzutel “Psychomet- ric Approaches to the Study of Creativity” In 200 JOURNAL OF ROUERTISING RESEARCH June 2004 Handbook of Creativity, R |. Sternberg, ed. Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999, + and M. A. RUNCO, “The Death of Cre- tivity Measurement Has Been Greatly Exag- ‘gerated: Current Issues, Recent Advances, and Future Directions in Creativity. Assessment” Roeper Review 21, 1 (1998): 36-40. Pourrz, A. “Creativeness and Imagination.” our nal of Advertising 4, 3 (1975): 1-14 Rep, L., K. KING, and D. DeLowme. “Top- Level Creatives Laok at Advertising Creativity ‘Then and Now” Journal of Advertsing 27, 2 (1998): 1-16, and H. RorrELD, tive Model of Advertising Creativity.” Journal of Advertising 5,4 (1976) 24-29, “Toward an Associa Rupes, M. “Analysis of Creativity.” Phi Delta ‘appen 42, 7 (1961): 305-10, Rossrren, Jon Rand Lanny Pency. Adverts. ing Communications & Promotion Management. New York: McGraw-Hill, 197, Ronse, R. “Burnett over Bernbach? ‘Time’ Doesn't Get Advertising Genius. Ag, July 12, 1998 Advertsing Runco, M.A. and 8. M. Oxupa. “The Instruc- tional Enhancement of the Flexibility and Orig- finality Scores of Divergent Thinking “Tests” Applic Cognitive Psychology 5 (1991): 435-41. —, and 8.0, Saxastoro, “Experimental Stad- In Handbook of Cretiity, R. Steenberg, ed. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer sity Press, 1999 tes of Creativity Scorr, SG, and R. A. Bruce. “Determinants of Innovative Behavior: A Path Model of Indi- ‘vidual Innovation in the Workplace.” Academy of Management Journal 37, 3 (1998): 580-607.Sera, R, D.C. Swrru and C.W. Pans. “Cross: Functional Product Development Teams, Cre tivity, andthe Innovativeness of Consumer Products.” Journal of Marketing Resor 38 2001): TH. IMONTON, D. K. “Creativity from a Historio- metric Perspective.” In Handbook of Crstvity, R.J. Sternberg, ed. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni versity Press, 1989, SMITH, So M. Wan, and R. FINKE, EDS, The CCratioe Cognition Approach, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995, SrexNBENG, R. J. “identifying, Creative Giftetness.” Roeper Review 23, 2 (2000): 60-65. id Developing —, and J. B. Davioson, ps. The Nature of Insgh, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995, nd TL Luar, “An Investment Theory fof Creativity and Its Development” Human Development 34 (1991): 1-32. and —— “Buy Low and Sell High: An Investment Approach to Creativity” Current Directions in Psychological Science 1, 1 (1992: 15. and — Defying the Crowe: Cultiating (Crtivity in @ Culture of Conformity. New Yorke Froe Press, 1995, and Investing. in Creativity.” American Psycholgist 51 (1996): 677-8. and “The Concept of Creativity: Prospects and Paradigms.” In Handlwok of Cre DEFINITION AND MEASUREMENT OF CREATIVITY atcity, RJ. Steenberg, ed. Cambridge: Cam- bridge University Press, 1990, LA Oana, ano TL Lumar. “Cro. ativity as Investment" California Management Reciew 40,1 (1997): 8-21. Sroxr, G. “Recall, Liking, and Creativity in TV Commercials: A New Approach.” Journal of Ad rts Resour 40,3 (2000) 7-19. Toneanct, E. P. Guing Cratce Talent. Engle wood Clifs, Nf: Prentice-Hall, 1962 Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Lew ington, MA: Personnel Press, 1974 fetes in Plucker and Renzulli (1999) er School Children (1958-1980)—and the Teacher ‘Who Made a Difference.” Gift Child Quurerly 25 (1981): 35-62, ing the Creativity of Elementary Unsworrss, K. “Unpacking Creativity” Acal- ‘my of Management Review 26,2 (2001): 289-97 VAN DEN Bexcn, B.,L. REID, and G. SCHORIN. “How Many Creative Alternatives to Gener ate?” Journal of Advertising 12, 4 (1983): 45-48. WAckMAN, Danttt B,C. T. SALMON, and C. SALMON. "Developing an Advertising Agency~ lent Relationship.” Journal of Advertising Re- stn 26,6 (1986/1987) 21-28, WaLtactt, M, and N. Kogan. "Modes of Think- ing in Young Child: A Study ofthe Cretivity- Intelligence Distinction.” New York: Wiley, 1965 Wersnenc, R. Creativity, Beyond the Myth of Ge hus, New York: Freeman, 1993 ‘West, Dovctas C. “Cross-National Creative Personalities, Processes and Agency Philoso- phos." Journal of Advertsing Research 33, 5 (1988): 53-62 ——. "Restricted Creativity: Advertising Agency Work Practices in the US, Canada and the UK" fournl of Creative Behavior 27,3 (1994): 200-13, West, Dovotas C. "360" of Creative Risk: An Journal of Adve. ising Research 38, 1 (1999): 38-50, Agency Theory Perspective. —, and Joun Foro, “Advertising Agency Philosophies and Employee Risk Taking.” Jour ral of Advertsing 30, 1 (2001): 77-91 —; ALAN MiciaK, and ADRIAN SARGEANT. “Advertiser Risk-Orientation and the Opin- fons and Practices of Advertsing, Managers.” International Journal of Advertising 18 (1999p: SIL ‘Wurre, A.,and B. Swim. “Assessing Adverts ing Creat ‘mantic Seale” Journal of Advertising Research A, 6 (2001): 27-34 ty Using the Creative Product Se- Warre, G. E, “Creativity: The X Factor in Ad- vertising, Theory (0972) 28-32. Journal of Advertsing 1, 1 ZiNKHUAN, G. “Creativity in Advertising, Cre tivity in the Journal of Advertising." Journal of Advertsing 22,2 (1993): 1-3. June 2004 JOURNAL OF ADUERTISING RESEARCH 203.