The Standard Definition of Creativity
创造力的标准定义

This Correction focuses on issues surrounding definitions of creativity. No topic is more central to research on creativity. There is a clear need to “correct” at least one all-too-common oversight found in definitions within the creativity literature.
本修正关注与创造力定义相关的问题。没有哪个主题比这更核心于创造力研究。显然需要“纠正”创造力文献中至少一个过于常见的定义疏漏。

Not surprisingly, nearly every article in the CRJ at least briefly defines creativity. The problem is that many articles cite books or articles from the 1990s or, at best, the 1980s, when defining creativity, when, in fact, the definition they are using—which is broadly accepted and thus can be called the standard definition—actually has a long history. It is a shame that the early discussions of the standard definition are ignored. Some of them are rich and remain entirely relevant. They are cited in the following.
毫不奇怪，几乎每篇《创意研究期刊》（CRJ）中的文章至少简要定义了创造力。问题在于，许多文章在定义创造力时引用的是 1990 年代或至多 1980 年代的书籍或文章，而实际上，他们所使用的定义——广泛被接受，因此可以称为标准定义——实际上有着悠久的历史。早期关于标准定义的讨论被忽视，实在令人遗憾。其中一些讨论内容丰富，至今仍然完全相关。它们将在以下内容中被引用。

The overarching purpose of all Corrections is to remind researchers that the field of creativity studies predates online literature searches. Although the science of creativity is, in some ways, unique and unlike other scientific endeavors (see Runco, Citationin press, for details), the field of creativity studies relies on the scientific method and is implicitly collaborative. Research builds on previous research. Originality is a core value in creativity studies, but this does not justify ignoring relevant research that was done previously. Good research is integrated into the larger field, citing what came before, in addition its originality and utility. Corrections in the CRJ ensure that due credit is given to earlier research.
所有更正的总体目的是提醒研究人员，创造力研究领域早于在线文献搜索。尽管创造力科学在某些方面是独特的，与其他科学事业不同（详见 Runco，待出版），但创造力研究领域依赖于科学方法，并且隐含地是协作的。研究建立在先前研究的基础上。原创性是创造力研究的核心价值，但这并不意味着可以忽视之前进行的相关研究。好的研究应融入更大的领域，引用之前的研究成果，以及其原创性和实用性。《创造力研究期刊》中的更正确保对早期研究给予应有的认可。

The field of creativity studies has roots in the 1950s, 1940s, and 1930s. Domain differences were examined in the 1930s (e.g., Patrick, Citation1935, Citation1937, Citation1938), and social criteria of creativity relying on consensual agreement go back at least to 1953 (Stein, Citation1953), just to name two examples. When was the standard definition of creativity first proposed?
创造力研究领域的根源可以追溯到 20 世纪 50 年代、40 年代和 30 年代。领域差异在 30 年代得到了研究（例如，Patrick，1935 年，1937 年，1938 年），而依赖于共识协议的创造力社会标准至少可以追溯到 1953 年（Stein，1953 年），仅举两个例子。那么，创造力的标准定义首次提出是在什么时候？

THE STANDARD DEFINITION 标准定义

The standard definition is bipartite: Creativity requires both originality and effectiveness. Are two criteria really necessary?
标准定义是双重的：创造力需要原创性和有效性。两个标准真的有必要吗？

Originality is undoubtedly required. It is often labeled novelty, but whatever the label, if something is not unusual, novel, or unique, it is commonplace, mundane, or conventional. It is not original, and therefore not creative.
原创性无疑是必需的。它常常被称为新颖性，但无论标签如何，如果某件事不是不寻常的、新颖的或独特的，它就是平常的、世俗的或传统的。它不是原创的，因此也就不是创造性的。

Originality is vital for creativity but is not sufficient. Ideas and products that are merely original might very well be useless. They may be unique or uncommon for good reason! Originality can be found in the word salad of a psychotic and can be produced by monkeys on word processors. A truly random process will often generate something that is merely original.
原创性对创造力至关重要，但并不足够。仅仅原创的想法和产品可能毫无用处。它们可能因某种原因而独特或不常见！原创性可以在精神病患者的胡言乱语中找到，也可以由在文字处理器上工作的猴子产生。真正随机的过程往往会生成一些仅仅是原创的东西。

So again, originality is not alone sufficient for creativity. Original things must be effective to be creative. Like originality, effectiveness takes various forms. It may take the form of (and be labeled as) usefulness, fit, or appropriateness. The Inaugural Editorial of the CRJ, which appeared nearly 25 years ago, referred to utility when describing what kind of research would be published (Runco, Citation1988). Creative research on creativity would be published, and the standard definition was used: “Originality is vital, but must be balanced with fit and appropriateness” (Runco, Citation1988, p. 4).
因此，再次强调，原创性并不足以单独构成创造力。原创的事物必须有效才能被视为创造性。与原创性一样，有效性也有多种形式。它可以表现为（并被称为）有用性、适合性或恰当性。近 25 年前发表的《创意研究杂志》的创刊社论提到了效用，描述了将会发表何种类型的研究（Runco, 1988）。关于创造力的创造性研究将会被发表，并使用了标准定义：“原创性至关重要，但必须与适合性和恰当性相平衡”（Runco, 1988, 第 4 页）。

Effectiveness may take the form of value. This label is quite clear in the economic research on creativity; it describes how original and valuable products and ideas depend on the current market, and more specifically on the costs and benefits of contrarianism (i.e., originality; Rubenson, Citation1991; Rubenson & Runco, Citation1992, Citation1995; Sternberg & Lubart, Citation1991). Value was also recognized by Bethune—in Citation1839! He described value as:
有效性可能表现为价值。这个标签在关于创造力的经济研究中非常明确；它描述了原创和有价值的产品和想法如何依赖于当前市场，更具体地说，依赖于逆向思维的成本和收益（即原创性；Rubenson, 1991；Rubenson & Runco, 1992, 1995；Sternberg & Lubart, 1991）。价值在 1839 年也被贝瑟恩认可！他将价值描述为：

Bethune referred to art, and genius, but he assumed that creativity played a role in each. Continuing,
白求恩提到了艺术和天才，但他假设创造力在其中扮演了一个角色。继续，

It was common to conflate creativity and genius in Bethune's (Citation1839) era, and, in fact, that same blend can be seen well into the 1900s.
在贝松（1839）时代，将创造力与天才混为一谈是很常见的，实际上，这种混合现象一直延续到 20 世纪。

Bethune (1839) quoted Shakespeare when describing the two facets of genius:
贝瑟恩（1839）在描述天才的两个方面时引用了莎士比亚：

This is from A Midsummer Night's Dream (Act 5, Scene 1, which was probably written after 1590 but before 1596) and not surprisingly is only two lines below what is probably the Shakespearean quotation most often cited in creativity research, namely, “The lunatic, lover, and the poet/Are of imagination all compact.”
这段文字出自《仲夏夜之梦》（第五幕第一场，可能写于 1590 年之后但在 1596 年之前），并且不出所料，它距离在创造力研究中最常被引用的莎士比亚名句仅有两行，即：“疯子、情人和诗人/都是想象的结合体。”

The poetic description of imagination finding “a local habituation and a name” is as suggestive as it is artful, but it is not a clear statement of originality and effectiveness. Thus, neither Shakespeare nor Bethune (Citation1839) should be credited with the original standard definition of creativity. They seemed to be thinking about two requirements that parallel originality and effectiveness, but their wording leaves a fair bit of ambiguity. In fact, some of the difficulty in finding the first occurrence of the standard definition is that the word creativity has a fairly short history.
想象力找到“一个地方的栖息和一个名字”的诗意描述既富有暗示性又艺术性，但这并不是对原创性和有效性的明确陈述。因此，既不能将原创标准定义归功于莎士比亚，也不能归功于贝松（1839）。他们似乎在考虑与原创性和有效性相平行的两个要求，但他们的措辞留下了相当多的模糊性。事实上，寻找标准定义首次出现的困难之一在于“创造力”这个词的历史相对较短。

Royce (1898) was on the right track, and, like Bethune (Citation1839), he worked before 1900:
罗伊斯（1898）走在正确的道路上，和贝松（1839）一样，他在 1900 年前就开始工作：

Royce's (1898) mention of “variation” is quite interesting, given the ongoing debate about blind variation and selective retention as requirements for the creative process (Gabora, Citation2011; Runco, Citation2007a; Simonton, Citation2007; Weisberg & Hass, Citation2007), but what is most pertinent is the phrase “valuable inventiveness.” Still, Royce did not use the words originality, creativity, nor even usefulness, and although invention is sometimes associated with creativity, it is certainly not a synonym (Runco, Citation2007b).
罗伊斯（1898）提到的“变异”相当有趣，因为关于盲目变异和选择性保留作为创造过程要求的持续辩论（Gabora, 2011; Runco, 2007a; Simonton, 2007; Weisberg & Hass, 2007），但最相关的是“有价值的创造力”这一短语。尽管如此，罗伊斯并没有使用原创性、创造力或甚至有用性这些词，尽管发明有时与创造力相关联，但它显然不是同义词（Runco, 2007b）。

Hutchinson (1931, p. 393) did use the word creativity and included “practicality” in his view of it. In his words, “In general. such contributions bear on the implications of creative thought for ethics, rather than on the technique of attaining creativeness itself. From a more practical standpoint... creative thought makes transformations in the world” (emphasis added). That “practical standpoint” could be the perspective of the author (and not the practicality of the creative act), but Hutchinson tied it to events “in the world.” Presumably, these are realistic or useful in or for our lives. It could be that he was referring to a method for finding creative ideas (the transformation of what already exists “in the world”), in which case we still do not have an unambiguous proposal for the standard definition of creativity.
哈钦森（1931 年，第 393 页）确实使用了“创造力”一词，并在他的观点中包含了“实用性”。他的话是：“一般来说，这种贡献涉及创造性思维对伦理的影响，而不是实现创造性本身的技术。从更实用的角度来看……创造性思维在世界上进行转变”（强调部分）。这个“实用的角度”可能是作者的视角（而不是创造行为的实用性），但哈钦森将其与“世界”中的事件联系在一起。可以推测，这些在我们的生活中是现实的或有用的。他可能是在指寻找创造性想法的一种方法（对“世界”中已存在事物的转变），在这种情况下，我们仍然没有一个明确的创造力标准定义的提议。

It is often a good tactic to work backwards. With that in mind: The two-criterion view was already the standard definition in the 1960s. Bruner (Citation1962), for example, in one of the true classics in the field, described how creativity requires “effective surprise” (p. 18). Cropley (Citation1967) pointed to the need for creative things to be “worthwhile” (p. 67) and reflect some “compelling” property (p. 21). Jackson and Messick (Citation1965, p. 313) felt that products must be “appropriate” and Kneller (Citation1965, p. 7) stated that products must be “relevant.” Cattell and Butcher (Citation1968) and Heinelt (Citation1974) used the terms pseudocreativity and quasicreativity to describe products that were not worthwhile or effective. Thus we must look for the first presentation of the standard definition before 1960.
倒推往往是一个好的策略。考虑到这一点：双标准视角在 1960 年代已经是标准定义。例如，布鲁纳（1962）在该领域的一部经典著作中描述了创造力需要“有效的惊喜”（第 18 页）。克罗普利（1967）指出，创造性的事物需要是“有价值的”（第 67 页），并反映出某种“引人注目的”特性（第 21 页）。杰克逊和梅西克（1965，第 313 页）认为产品必须是“适当的”，而克内勒（1965，第 7 页）则表示产品必须是“相关的”。卡特尔和布彻（1968）以及海内尔特（1974）使用伪创造力和准创造力这两个术语来描述那些不值得或不有效的产品。因此，我们必须寻找 1960 年前标准定义的首次提出。

A second good tactic is to use base rates. This suggests a close examination of Institute for Personality and Social Research and the first generation of scholars committed to scientific research on creativity (see Helson, Citation1999). Indeed, it will come as no surprise to serious students of creativity research that Barron (Citation1955) mentioned the standard definition over 50 years ago. He wrote,
第二个有效的策略是使用基准率。这意味着要仔细研究人格与社会研究所以及第一代致力于创造力科学研究的学者（见 Helson，1999）。事实上，对于认真研究创造力的学生来说，巴伦（1955）在 50 多年前提到的标准定义并不令人惊讶。他写道，

This quotation might be enough to credit Barron (Citation1955) with the first explicit statement of the standard definition, but then again, “adaptation to reality” was in his discussion of originality and not creativity per se. In fact, Barron referred to two criteria, but one was a criterion for originality, not creativity. He wrote,
这段引用可能足以将巴伦（1955）视为标准定义的首次明确陈述，但“适应现实”是在他对原创性的讨论中提到的，而不是对创造力本身的讨论。事实上，巴伦提到了两个标准，但其中一个是原创性的标准，而不是创造力的标准。他写道，

The title of Barron's (Citation1955) paper was “The Disposition Towards Originality,” and the two criteria he discussed were uncommonness and adaptation to reality. He was therefore right on target for effectiveness (or usefulness, utility, and value) but he was not explicit about how this all fits with creativity! Creativity was a concern for Barron (Citation1955); he opened this article by criticizing the tendency
巴伦（1955）论文的标题是“对原创性的倾向”，他讨论的两个标准是罕见性和对现实的适应性。因此，他在有效性（或有用性、效用和价值）方面是准确的，但他并没有明确说明这一切与创造力的关系！创造力是巴伦（1955）关注的问题；他在这篇文章开头批评了这种倾向。

He was interested in creativity, but did not define it. He defined originality instead.
他对创造力感兴趣，但并没有对其进行定义。他则定义了独创性。

Guilford (1950) is often credited with publishing the first compelling argument that creativity can be studied scientifically. How did he define creativity? In his own words:
吉尔福德（1950）常被认为是首次提出创造力可以通过科学研究的有力论据的学者。他是如何定义创造力的？用他自己的话说：

That is probably best viewed as a recommendation of what to study. It does not define creativity, other than tautologically “creativity is the characteristic of creative people.”
这可能最好被视为对学习内容的建议。它并没有定义创造力，除了用自我重复的方式“创造力是创造性人群的特征。”

Guilford (1950) did point to criteria for creativity when he stated that “the creative person has novel ideas. The degree of novelty of which the person is capable, or which he habitually exhibits... can be tested in terms of the frequency of uncommon, yet acceptable, responses to items” (p. 452). He thus emphasized originality and operationalized it as novelty and, even more precisely, in terms of uncommon behaviors.
吉尔福德（1950）确实指出了创造力的标准，他表示“创造性的人有新颖的想法。一个人能够或习惯性地表现出的新颖程度……可以通过对项目的少见但可接受的反应频率来测试”（第 452 页）。因此，他强调了原创性，并将其操作化为新颖性，甚至更精确地说，是通过少见的行为来衡量。

What of the second part of the standard definition? Guilford (Citation1950) did refer to acceptable ideas, the implication being that novelty by itself is not sufficient for creativity. He explored this point further when he wrote, “Creative work that is to be realistic or accepted must be done under some degree of evaluative restraint. Too much restraint, of course, is fatal to the birth of new ideas. The selection of surviving ideas, however, requires some evaluation” (p. 453). Thus, Guilford seemed to be assuming that creativity requires originality and effectiveness. He used the terms realistic and acceptable for the latter, which is slightly problematic, but still he was thinking about creativity in a fashion that is entirely consistent with the standard definition.
标准定义的第二部分又如何呢？吉尔福德（1950）确实提到了可接受的想法，这暗示着新颖性本身并不足以构成创造力。他在写道：“要想使创造性工作变得现实或被接受，必须在某种程度的评估约束下进行。当然，过多的约束对新想法的诞生是致命的。然而，幸存想法的选择需要某种评估”（第 453 页）。因此，吉尔福德似乎假设创造力需要原创性和有效性。他用“现实”和“可接受”这两个术语来描述后者，这略显问题，但他仍然以一种完全符合标准定义的方式思考创造力。

The reason acceptable is a problematic way of labeling the criterion of effectiveness is that it begs the question, “Acceptable for whom?” Long ago, Murray (1958) asked, “Who is to judge the judges? And the judges of the judges?” Simonton (in press) and Runco (Citation2003) also saw the question of judges to be a part of issues of definition. Stein (Citation1953) seemed to be aware of this issue and, for this reason, distinguished between the internal and external frames of reference that might be used when defining creativity.
“可接受性”作为有效性标准的标签是一种有问题的方式，因为它引出了一个问题：“对谁来说是可接受的？”很久以前，穆雷（1958）问道：“谁来评判评判者？而评判者的评判者呢？”西蒙顿（即将出版）和伦科（2003）也认为评判者的问题是定义问题的一部分。斯坦（1953）似乎意识到了这个问题，因此在定义创造力时区分了可能使用的内部和外部参考框架。

As a matter of fact, to our reading, the first clear use of the standard definition seems to have been in an article on creativity and culture, written by Stein (Citation1953). In his words,
事实上，根据我们的阅读，标准定义的首次明确使用似乎出现在斯坦因（1953）撰写的一篇关于创造力和文化的文章中。他的话是，

Stein (1953) was the first to offer the standard definition in an entirely unambiguous fashion, and unlike his predecessors, he was without a doubt talking about creativity per se. He was not discussing originality, although novelty, and therefore originality, are vital for creativity, and he was not discussing genius, although he offered a useful perspective on it (the “distance”).
斯坦因（1953）首次以完全明确的方式提供了标准定义，与他的前任不同，他无疑是在谈论创造力本身。他并没有讨论原创性，尽管新颖性，因此原创性，对创造力至关重要；他也没有讨论天才，尽管他提供了一个有用的视角（“距离”）。

Stein (1953) is also quoted in detail because he offered several other ideas that are still in use and were well ahead of their time. These include his ideas that (a) creative work tends to be useful for some group, and thus that social judgment is involved; (b) a creative insight “arises from a reintegration of already existing materials or knowledge, but when it is completed it contains elements that are new” (p. 311); and (c) it is important to separate personal from historical creativity (cf. Boden, Citation1994; Runco, Citation1996). Stein also foresaw that environments never have a completely predictable impact. Their influence is always dependent on the individual's perception. This view is usually described as a trait × state interaction and was clearly apparent in the early definition of press (one of the four strands of research identified by Rhodes, Citation1961). Stein was aware of the role of both sensitivity and problem finding ability (“The creative person has a lower threshold, or greater sensitivity, for the gaps or the lack of closure that exist in the environment” [p. 312]), recognized the benefits of broad attention and loose associations (cf. Dailey A. et al., Citation1997), and in Citation1953 was already studying domain differences, as is so common in creativity research today. Stein reported data from artists and chemists and concluded that creativity benefits from permeable cognitive structures, “for persons in one area (physics, for example) it may mean greater flexibility in the intellectual sphere, while for other. . . the artist, it appears as a greater flexibility in the emotional or affective sphere” (p. 313).
斯坦因（1953）被详细引用，因为他提出了几种仍在使用且远超其时代的其他想法。这些想法包括：（a）创造性工作往往对某个群体有用，因此涉及社会判断；（b）创造性洞察“源于对已有材料或知识的再整合，但当它完成时包含了新的元素”（第 311 页）；以及（c）区分个人创造力与历史创造力是重要的（参见 Boden，1994；Runco，1996）。斯坦因还预见到环境从来不会有完全可预测的影响。它们的影响总是依赖于个体的感知。这种观点通常被描述为特质×状态的交互，并在早期的压力定义中明显体现（这是罗德斯（Rhodes，1961）识别的四个研究领域之一）。斯坦因意识到敏感性和问题发现能力的作用（“创造性的人对环境中存在的空白或缺乏闭合的敏感性阈值较低”[第 312 页]），并认识到广泛注意力和松散联想的好处（参见 Dailey A.等）。1997 年），并且在 1953 年已经开始研究领域差异，这在今天的创造力研究中非常普遍。斯坦报告了来自艺术家和化学家的数据，并得出结论，创造力受益于渗透的认知结构，“对于某一领域（例如物理学）的人来说，这可能意味着在智力领域更大的灵活性，而对于其他……艺术家来说，这表现为在情感或情绪领域更大的灵活性”（第 313 页）。

CONCLUSIONS 结论

Although there were hints that creativity requires originality and usefulness in publications before 1900, it seems to us that Barron (Citation1955), and especially Stein (Citation1953), should be cited whenever the standard definition is used.
尽管在 1900 年之前的出版物中有迹象表明创造力需要原创性和实用性，但我们认为每当使用标准定义时，应引用巴伦（1955）和特别是斯坦（1953）。

This does not imply that no further work is needed and that the standard definition is completely adequate. Important research is being done on several fronts. One involves the basis of judgments. The standard definition only pinpoints which criteria must be used; it does not say anything about who is to judge each, and who is to judge the judges.
这并不意味着不需要进一步的工作，也不意味着标准定义是完全足够的。正在多个方面进行重要的研究。其中一个涉及判断的基础。标准定义仅指出必须使用哪些标准；它并没有说明谁来判断每一个标准，以及谁来判断这些判断者。

Then there are questions about the number of criteria that should be used in a definition of creativity. The standard view points to two criteria, but perhaps there are more—or fewer! Simonton (in press) made a strong case for three criteria—surprise being the third—and Runco (Citationin press) raised the possibility that only one criterion is needed. Simonton based his argument on guidelines from the U.S. Patent office; Runco felt that parsimony was the best guide. These two theories of creativity are easy to find in other issues of the CRJ.
然后，关于在创造力的定义中应使用多少标准的问题也引发了讨论。标准观点指出有两个标准，但也许还有更多——或者更少！Simonton（即将出版）为三个标准提出了有力的论据——惊讶是第三个标准——而 Runco（即将出版）则提出了只需要一个标准的可能性。Simonton 的论点基于美国专利局的指导方针；Runco 认为简约是最佳指导。这两种创造力理论在 CRJ 的其他期刊中也很容易找到。