The different definitions of creativity that have been proposed by researchers have developed out of what are called explicit theories of creativity, on the basis of logical and semantic arguments, independently of empirical data. The present paper focuses on two such definitions, the standard definition (M.A. Runco & G.J. Jaeger, 2012), which defines a creative product as one that is novel and valuable, and R.W. Weisberg’s (2015, 2018) intentional novelty (IN) definition, which defines a creative product as one that is novel and produced intentionally. Those two definitions make different predictions concerning the criteria that lay-people will when making judgments of creativity: both emphasize novelty, but the standard definition also includes value, while the IN definition includes the intention of the individual. Three studies (N = 983) tested those differential predictions using a scenario method. Overall, the results supported the importance of novelty and intentionality in lay-people’s judgments of creativity, as well as raising questions about the role of value in such judgments. That pattern of results supported the IN definition. However, the results did not support the specific predictions made on the basis of the IN definition. The theoretical implications are discussed.

中文翻译：

---

从显性到隐性的创造力理论再回来：天真标准在定义创造力中的相关性

研究人员提出的创造力的不同定义是从所谓的明确的创造力理论发展而来的，基于逻辑和语义论证，独立于经验数据。本文重点关注两个这样的定义，标准定义 (MA Runco & GJ Jaeger, 2012) 将创意产品定义为新颖且有价值的产品，以及 RW Weisberg (2015, 2018) 的有意新颖性 (IN) 定义，它将创意产品定义为新颖且有意生产的产品。这两种定义对于外行判断创造力的标准做出了不同的预测：都强调新颖性，但标准定义也包含价值，而IN定义包含个人意图。三项研究（N  = 983) 使用情景方法测试了这些差异预测。总体而言，结果支持新颖性和意向性在外行人对创造力的判断中的重要性，并提出了关于价值在此类判断中的作用的问题。这种结果模式支持 IN 定义。然而，结果并不支持根据 IN 定义做出的具体预测。讨论了理论含义。