Abstract

This exploratory research tests two competing general predictions: the expert-performance literature predicting creatives will demonstrate greater creativity than others while the process-performance paradox literature predicting they will demonstrate equivalent or less creativity. We compare the performance of agency creatives with agency noncreatives and a general population sample on three creativity assessments: a general divergent thinking test (Alternative Uses Task), a general convergent thinking test (Remote Associates Test), and an advertising domain-specific creativity test (scenario-based tagline generation). Creatives did not outperform noncreatives on any of the tests but did outperform the general population in terms of the elaboration and originality aspects of divergent thinking. The general population outperformed both agency samples on the convergent thinking test. No differences were found in the domain-specific creativity test. Overall, this exploratory study finds more evidence supporting the process-performance paradox perspective.

摘要

这项探索性研究检验了两个相互竞争的一般性预测：预测性能的专家绩效文献将展示比其他更大的创造力，而过程绩效悖论文献则预测他们将表现出同等或更少的创造力。我们在三种创意评估中比较了代理创意与代理非创意的表现以及总体样本，这三种创意是：通用发散思维测验（替代使用任务），通用趋同测验（远程关联测试）和针对广告领域的创意测验（基于场景的标语生成）。在任何测试中，创意人的表现均未超过非创意人，但就发散性思维的阐述和独创性而言，其表现却胜过一般人群。在融合思维测验中，总体人口胜过两个机构的样本。在特定领域的创造力测试中未发现差异。总的来说，这项探索性研究发现了更多的证据支持过程性能悖论的观点。