Introduction

Probably the three most overheard comments at any Superbowl party are, "I get my seat back," "That sells beer?" and, "How did they come up with that ad?" Creativity, it seems, defies common explanation. This relates to more than just Superbowl commercials; when it comes to art, music, science and technology, or, in this case, advertising, people are amazed by creative thought. Amazed by it, and envious of it, too, as there seem to be creative haves and creative have-nots. Some willingly embrace the fact that they aren't creative at all, others wish they were more so.

Probably the most accessible and pervasive creative products in common culture today are 30-second television commercials, 60-second radio spots, 4-color double page spreads, or towering billboards. Creativity is often regarded as the most important aspect of the industry (Otnes, Oviatt, & Treise, 1995). Most people probably have no idea about the functions of advertising professionals who don't create the ads. Creative thought is so valuable in advertising, agencies' entire business structures are sometimes designed around the talents of just one creative genius (Cummings, 1984).

As the advertising industry has grown and become increasingly complex, preparing individuals for careers in this demanding business became more complex as well. Some of the skills needed for advertising mirror those for most businesses: presentation skills, client relations, conceptual skills, speedy execution of ideas, and strategic thinking (Robbs, 1996). But these topics do not capture the creative spark that invented Hershey's chocolate cow that makes chocolate milk, or a Spanish-speaking Chihuahua that hawks tacos. Gone are the days that advertising agencies will take anyone with writing skills or artistic abilities and turn them into copywriters or art directors. Less on-the-job training (Robbs, 1996) means entry-level creative advertising professionals need to be up to a speed where they can hit the ground running. Running fast, in fact, as desktop publishing, imaging and printing technology enables production of near-professional quality work with, compared to the past, little effort or training - agencies' have much higher expectations of junior employees (Otnes, Oviatt & Treise, 1995).

The responsibility falls on advertising education programs to teach aspiring advertising creatives how to harness their creative energies. With technology, stock photography and improved digital printing helping student portfolios look more professional, a student's ability to think creatively and strategically becomes possibly their greatest competitive advantage. Dedicating a specific creative track within an advertising program allows students to focus on these skills in order to give them more opportunities to develop the abilities which agencies seek. Portfolio finishing schools such as Portfolio Center and Creative Circus in Atlanta, Georgia (Deckinger, Brink, Katzenstein, & Primavera, 1989; Otnes, Oviatt, & Treise, 1995) the Miami Ad School, and creative advertising programs at the University of Texas at Austin and Virginia Commonwealth University have done just that.

But can creativity really be taught? Or can creative individuals be trained to make advertising? Many consider creativity an innate ability, creative individuals mere mortal vessels to be filled with spiritual inspiration (Sternberg & Lubart 1996). But as academics strive to better understand "the creative spark which drives much of advertising" (Zinkham, 1993) the resulting research and theory supports that creativity can indeed be trained, and guides creative advertising programs in promising directions.

This report reviews established theories of creativity, the components of creative thought, and the use of particular creativity training methods. In addition to published research, the author includes experiences in the University of Texas' Department of Advertising's creative program to provide concrete examples of the presented principles.[1]

Texas Creative program

The University of Texas at Austin's Department of Advertising's creative program trains both undergraduate and graduate students as copywriters and art directors, specifically preparing for careers in advertising. Students must apply to participate in the program by answering a creative question. That question is typically ambiguous and open to interpretation, allowing for a wide variety of appropriate responses. For example, in the past the application has asked, "What is the distance?", "What makes sense?", and "What is courage?" Answers to the question remain anonymous when judged. Undergraduate applicants must be advertising students in good standing, with a grade point average of 2.25 or higher. Graduate student applicants also must be enrolled in the Advertising program with a grade point average of at least 3.0.

The program consists of three levels of portfolio courses. Each level requires students to produce a semester portfolio of print advertisements, with a final, polished portfolio and a well-rounded creative, strategic advertising brain the goal of the entire program. Directed by the instructor, students develop campaigns throughout the semester that are evaluated for a grade at an end of semester critique by members of the program faculty and advertising professionals. Progression through the program is based on the instructor's and professionals' judgments of the progress a student makes throughout their current level. If students are not ready to advance, they are presented with the option of repeating that level.

Student work at Texas is predominately in printed media, as it is in most other advertising programs nationwide. Production of broadcast media requires large amounts of time, money, and equipment, resources that the students and program have in short supply. But practitioners tend to appreciate student's work in print advertisements, because the medium requires the concept and message to be communicated clearly and concisely (Robbs, 1996).

Definition of Creativity

People find it difficult to define creativity. Much like the Supreme Justice who attempted to legally define pornography, for the most part, people know creativity when they see it. Many expect creativity to involve the conception of something entirely new (Fleenor, Myers and McCaulley, 1985). Others think that adapting, improving, advancing or finding a new application for an existing process or product qualifies as creative behavior (Kirton, 1976, 1987). Or creativity could merely be original ways to reach goals when the means to do so are not readily apparent (Brophy, 1998).

Through much debate, researchers conclude that, at its simplest, creativity is the ability to produce work that is both novel (original, unexpected, and divergent) and appropriate (useful, meets task constraints) (Guilford, 1967; Lubart, 1994; Ochse, 1990; Sternberg, 1988b; Sternberg & Lubart, 1991, 1995). From there, though, the definition gets cloudy as more distinctions are added. Amabile (1982a), Jackson & Messick (1965), MacKinnon (1962), and Sternberg (1985a, 1988a) forward that creative work also must be of high quality. Barron (1963) measures creativity as a combination of originality, complexity of outlook, and independence of judgment. Still others include that creativity is marked by the production of a high volume of ideas or products (Fleenor & Taylor, 1994, Simonton, 1988, 1997).

The appropriateness of reducing creativity to two, measurable dimensions remains undecided. Creativity as a confluence of novelty and appropriateness can be found in the daily lives (Sternbeg & Lubart, 1991) of most people (Kirton, 1976). But does this non-eminent, "little 'c'" creativity directly relate to "big 'C'", eminent creativity (Sternberg & Lubart, 1996)? It seems to many that the creativity needed to make random word associations might differ greatly from the creativity needed to paint the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.

Problems with "novelty" and "appropriateness"

Novelty

The so-called fundamentals of creativity, "novel" and "appropriate," are not so clear themselves. Novelty is difficult to measure. Most researchers operationalize novelty as divergence from a norm (Marsh, Landau, & Hicks, 1996; Sternberg & Lubart, 1996). Yet, using statistical divergence from a mean is only one means of measuring novelty (Sternberg & Lubart, 1996). Other means, however, remain problematic as well. Attempts to use fluency, flexibility, originality and elaboration as proxies or predictors of novelty fail to capture the concept of creativity (Amabile, 1983).

Judgment

Furthermore, if novel behavior must meet a standard of quality or utility (Maltzman 1960, guilford 1968, Shalley 1991, Wallach & Kogan 1965, Winston and Baker 1985), and a product is creative because appropriate judges collectively agree on this evaluation (Amabile 1982a), who are these appropriate judges of quality or utility? Some argue originality's usefulness must be recognized by society (Meyer and Roark 1989a), since the creative product is presented to the world for evaluation and consumption (Feldhusen, 1995). Maltzman (1960) argues that social judgment actually transforms originality into creativity, that original thought must be expressed and judged in order to become creativity. Society's omission or ignorance of an idea can arrest the development of originality into creativity; if an individual's creative output is overlooked or disregarded, it misses the judgment essential to being considered truly creative (Maltzman, 1960).

In this way, creativity is not in the individual but in the social system (Csikszentmihalyi, 1988). Social and cultural factors affect all parts of the creative system and are particularly influential to defining the individual's concept of creativity (Harrington, 1990; Holland, 1985; Labouvie-Vief, 1994; Nochlin, 1971; Wittkower and Wittkower, 1963). The judgment of original thought is not permanent. "What was once success may become failure and what was once ignored may later become belatedly acclaimed (Simonton, 1997)." It may take much time for society at large to see the value of a creative product (Sternberg & Lubart, 1991).

Indeed, society at large might be too vast a domain to serve as a fair judge of creativity. Some consider only what impacts a discipline as creative (Simonton, 1997), even though it might not excite or impress others outside that discipline. "Creativity evaluation is subjective, so the value of ideas will vary from one environment to another" (Sternberg & Lubart, 1991). Then it would be less than fair to use an artist's evaluation to decide the creative merit of a scientist's efforts. "Of course, peoples' definitions of creativity can vary somewhat from . . . one field to another" (Sternberg 1996). Art professors have been shown to emphasize imagination and originality, as well as an abundance of and willingness to try out new ideas. Philosophy professors focus on the ability to toy imaginatively with notions and combinations of ideas, as well as being able to devise classification schemes and systems. Physics professors emphasize inventiveness, the ability to organize chaos and the willingness to challenge fundamental principles (Sternberg, 1985b). A judge must be informed and familiar with a domain to know whether a creation is original to or aptly suited for that domain. They will know "where things are, what has been done, and what needs to be done" (Sternberg & Lubart, 1991). Thus, only judges from the field that the creator works in should evaluate and select new ideas to preserve and transmit to other individuals and generations (Csikszentmihalyi, 1988).

Creativity as a Cognitive Process

The former definition of creativity really only designates what determines if an idea or product is creative. A better understanding of creativity comes through investigating the cognitive constructs and processes that are involved in creative behavior. Certain cognitive traits characterize creative people (Amabile, 1983; Barron, 1968, 1969; Eysenck, 1993; Gough, 1979; MacKinnon, 1965). In fact, samples of creative individuals of varying age and occupation share common characteristics (Barron, 1965; Cattell and Butcher, 1970). Laypersons explain that creative people:

Researchers show that these traits mark creative individuals, and that multiple components must converge for creativity to occur (Amabile, 1983; Csikszentmihalyi, 1988; Feldhusen & Goh, 1995; Gardner, 1993; Gruber, 1989; Lubart, 1994; MacKinnon, 1960, 1962; Mumford and Gustafson, 1988; Perkins, 1981; Simonton, 1988; Sternberg, 1985a; Sternberg & Lubart, 1991, 1995; Weisberg, 1993; Woodman & Schoenfeldt, 1989). Sternberg and Lubart (1991) developed a theory of creativity that classifies the interacting cognitive traits into categories of creative resources: intelligence, knowledge, intellectual style, personality, motivation, and environment. Most other models can be integrated into this "knitted" theory, giving insight to the interactions of the cognitive traits.

Creative Intelligence

Creative people get accused of being intelligent; the study of creativity began, somewhat, with the study of genius (Becker, 1995; Isaksen & Murdock 1993). Elementary school students that teachers and faculty members describe as creative are also described as intelligent (Rossman & Gollob, 1975). This overlap continues between creativity and good speaking skills, good writing skills, originality (Holland, 1959), and high grades in school (Wallen & Stevens, 1960). There is some question to the objectivity of this correlation, or if a "halo" effect surrounds creativity, wherein observers mesh creativity, intelligence and what they think intelligence entails together into one trait and place it on people who show original behavior (Bachelor, 1989).

Indeed, tests designed to measure intelligence that are used frequently for psychological assessment and in education and industry have been proven to predict a range of traits (Ghiselli, 1973; Hunter, 1986). Intelligence, however, appears to be a poor predictor of creativity. Despite intuitive and anecdotal evidence, intelligence and creativity in experimental contexts correlate modestly. At best, only average intelligence is necessary as a resource for creative behavior (Barron & Harrington, 1981; Guilford, 1979; Sternberg, 1985; Sternberg & Lubart, 1996 Wallach & Wing, 1969). Meyer (1991) concludes that creative behavior is a learned pattern of habits and attitudes, not IQ or a basic ability or aptitude, and that, with training, an individual can reach creative achievement from most any aptitude level. Moreover, people inclined to think convergently - which associates with unoriginal behavior - perform better on IQ tests (Gardner, 1985; Sternberg, 1985) since success on these tests requires convergence to the "right" answers.

Quality of Intelligence, not quantity

So the quantity of intelligence might not matter, but the quality of intelligence certainly does. Creative individuals possess the ability to make remote associations: connections between unrelated ideas or objects (Mednick, 1962). These connections require the concurrent processing of ideas. Appropriately, then, the highest performers on remote associations tests also have the widest spans of attention and show that they simultaneously think along multiple lines (Kasperson, 1978). Creatives also show fluid and insightful reasoning abilities by moving ideas from common into unique systems of thinking (Sternberg, 1982). They easily form analogies between old and new ideas, including ideas from in and outside the domain in which they are working (Sternberg & Lubart, 1991). Analogy building combines their divergent thinking skills with selective comparison to choose particular concepts to collate (Guilford, 1967). In deeper terms, they regress or access preconscious, primary-process thinking and synthesize it with conscious, secondary process thought (Arieti, 1976, Kris, 1952, Kube, 1958, Maslow, 1968 Suler, 1980 Mednick, 1962 Findlay & Lumsden, 1988). Creative individuals show visualization skills, the power and will to escape established perceptual sets, and flexible decision-making (Tardif & Sternberg, 1988).

Note that the described processes actually include divergent and convergent thought. Analogy building takes divergent ideas and converges them into one. Recall the role of social judgment in assessing the appropriateness of creative work. The work must converge with some guidelines the judges will use to determine its usefulness. Creative problem solving abuts divergent thinking and convergent evaluation, requiring the ability to judge when each is appropriate (Murdock & Pussic, 1993, Noppe, 1996, Runco & Chad, 1995). Rotating through divergent and convergent thinking evinces an advanced stage of cognitive development (Brophy, 1998). For creative thinking, an ideal balance between "the competence, problem solving and convergent thinking on one hand" and "independent knowledge, problem finding and divergent thinking" (Moneta, 1993) on the other, should be struck. This explains, in part, the overlap of IQ tests, earlier presented as a test suited for convergent thinkers, and creativity assessments. Creative individuals might shift into convergent thought while taking such tests.

Intelligence in problem choice, definition and redefinition

The alternation between convergent and divergent thinking shows strongly in how creative individuals choose, define, and solve problems, tasks, or projects. Truly, "finding potential avenues for creativity is nontrivial" (Sternbegr & Lubart, 1991). Creative individuals tend to recognize and focus on the good problems in a field (Tardif & Sternberg, 1988), perhaps seeing divergent opportunities for solutions where others do not. Wise choices of problems and solutions have been reported in many biographies of artists and scientists (Henle, 1975); the most eminent artists exhibit taste in their choice of problems for visual expression (Getzels & Csikszentmihalyi, 1976).

Good problems are not easily found - they are created. Since most problems are unstructured and unpredictable with ambiguous goals, understanding and defining the problem proves more difficult than solving it. (Basadur, 1987). Instead, sensing vague or illogical problems leads individuals to create new problem definitions (Finke, Ward, & Smith, 1992). Individuals generate many more answers after recasting problems into broad terms applied directly to their expertise (Volkema, 1983). Or if the problem is clear, but apparent solutions seem hackneyed, by selectively encoding certain problem traits, and making insightful comparison and selective combinations, individuals can view old problems in a new light (Davidson & Sternberg, 1984, Sternberg & Davidson, 1982). Strong analogies can also transform problems by introducing knowledge, meaning and procedures from one field into another (Sternberg & Lubart, 1991). This redefinition highlights the interplay of divergent and convergent thought in the creative process, as creative individuals must think divergently to associate remote ideas with a problem-task and then converge those ideas into a new category to develop a creative solution.

Forming these new categories lies at the heart of creative intelligence. Creative individuals naturally organize information into categories or systems of information with the intent to generate new solutions to the problem (Mumford, Costanza, Threlfal, Baughman & Reiter-Palmon, 1993). As their experience changes they will adjust those categories to reflect the broadened experience (Carnes & Kirton, 1982, Kirton, 1976, 1978a, 1985). Impulsively using established categories leads individuals to ignore less obvious cues, strategies and potential solutions to a problem, task or project (Mumford, Reiter-Palmon, & Redmond, 1994), resulting in lower creativity. Thus, creativity flourishes when individuals do not believe in "one right answer" (Adams 1974, 1986, von Oech, 1983). They can then escape perceptual sets, and question norms (Tardif & Sternberg, 1988).

It makes sense, then, that researchers were most creative when they could decide how to work problems (Amabile, 1987), that "successful" and "original" artists spent more time formulating their art compositions (Getzels & Csikszentmihalyi, 1976) - creativity requires the freedom and time to develop new, application-specific systems and categories. People best able to construct problems produce the most original and high quality solutions (Reiter-Palmon, Mumford, Boes & Runco, 1997). By helping creatives improve their problem defining skills, creative behavior can be enhanced.

Role of Intelligence in the Texas Creative program

Although candidates for the Texas Creative program must be students in good standing with certain grade point averages, the standard for such status might seem less than rigorous to some. That and the neglect of candidates' SAT/ACT/GRE scores, as far as they might be considered measures of intelligence, in the Texas Creative program application process supports that high intelligence might not be necessary for creativity. In fact, some students with average or lower performance in general academic courses excel in the creative courses. This might be simple lack of interest in other subjects, or it can represent a difference in aptitudes.

When working on a new campaign, students often will develop a creative brief, which could be considered their problem definition. The format of these briefs varies from student to student and often from project to project. Students floundering for good advertising concepts often need to go back and rework their creative brief to better define and understand their problem. Frequently little effort goes into creative brief development. It might be a low priority for the creative students and seen as an uncreative, even convergent task. However, students in the program and professionals in the industry have expressed that nothing gives them more freedom than a tightly written creative brief. Perhaps designing exercises that encourage divergent thinking in developing creative briefs would increase time spent in this problem development phase, and lead to higher levels of creativity.

Knowledge

For intelligence to be useful, the creative mind must have information to process. The ingestion and digestion of information (Young, 1960) is necessary so that the individual has data to organize and rearrange into new patterns (Carnes & Kirton 1982, Kirton 1976, 1978a, 1985). Selecting what information to encode makes a large difference in the generation of creative solutions (Davidson & Sternberg, 1984; Sternberg & Davidson, 1982). The most creative individuals tend to be intellectually curious, seek out more information to work with, are open to experience, and display a wide breadth of interests (MacKinnon, 1962).

So for creativity, as one advertising creative explained, an individual should "get a lot of information" (Otnes, Oviatt, & Treise, 1995). Broadening knowledge increases an individual's associative network by adding more possibilities for permutations and combinations of ideas (Mednick, 1962). As mentioned before, the highest performers on remote associations tests show the widest span of attention, collecting information from multiple sources (Kasperson, 1978). This learning might not be directed at the task at hand, in fact, information that appears to the learner to be unrelated to the task often becomes a crucial element in the creative solution (Bahrick, Fitts & Rankin, 1952; Johnson & Thomson, 1962; McNamara & Fisch, 1964). Creative problem solvers need to have wide enough expanses of knowledge to generate and "identify useful chance combinations that lead to solutions and change current solutions into alternate products or procedures" (Brophy, 1998). The most creative scientists gather information from a wide rangeof sources and fields (Mendelsohn, 1976). Scientists with expert knowledge use more analogies and evince the resilient ability to use unpredicted, surprising results in experiments to narrow down options and develop new questions (Brophy, 1998). Beyond just information, creative individuals need knowledge of "heuristics for generating novel ideas such as trying a counterintuitive approach" (Amabile 1983a,b). Knowing "how one can go about creating what is needed and how one's ideas will be perceived" is as important as knowing "where things are, what has been done, and what needs to be done" in a field (Sternberg & Lubart, 1991).

Not too much information, please

Thus, it is important that while obtaining information, creative individuals do not treat domains of knowledge as discrete (Sternberg & Lubart, 1991), and approach learning with an awareness that what can be learned can also be transformed (Pickard, 1990). Thinking that is flexible and draws from assorted category types predicts creativity better than fluency or originality ratings (Runco, 1991a). Better creative thought comes after asking questions about evaluation, synthesis and application of ideas rather than just about facts (Glover, 1979).

But too much information can restrain creativity. Experts in certain fields are not often the most creative in the field (Sternberg & Lubart 1991). Creativity might increase with knowledge to a point, and then falls off, the function tracing an inverted "u" (Simonton, 1984). Expertise often blinds people to new ideas unless expert knowledge is stored in broad categories that can promote new associations (Amabile, 1990; Martinsen 1993). Experts are more likely to reflexively use pre-packaged ideas routines and procedures, neglecting the environment and miss subtle cues for potential strategies (Mumford, Reiter-Palmon, & Redmond, 1994, Sternberg & Frensch, 1989). Diffuse associations allow better remote associations; expertise brings finer distinction to ideas and concepts, narrowing possible associations (Mednick, 1962).

Knowledge in the Texas Creative program

As regular students in the advertising department and the university, program participants are subject to course requirements outside of the program. This requires the students to learn other topics and pursue other interests outside of advertising, which can only lead to the earlier discussed breadth of knowledge and experience. This might be seen as an advantage over portfolio finishing schools that only offer training specific to advertising. It also requires students to take advertising course and learn advertising specific skills, like campaign strategy, that are essential to the creative program, allowing the program to expect students already have that knowledge.

Advertising professionals contend that courses outside the traditional advertising curricula are essential to advertising professionals in their careers. They particularly encourage students to take courses in English, economics, film, journalism, art history, and "seasoned creatives clearly placed more value on psychology courses." One professional advises, "Acquire whatever breadth you can find, whether it's working on a fishing boat, climbing mountains or visiting old folk's homes . . . the broader you can be the more stuff you'll have to draw from as a creative person." (Otnes, Oviatt, & Treise, 1995)

At the end of a semester or after a deadline for student advertising competitions, the program students are often encouraged to take a break from advertising. They are encouraged instead to go to museums, read books, see movies, go hiking, and do pretty much anything other than sit and think of ways to sell products. After these breaks students not only return with fresh energy but with brighter ideas.

Intellectual Style

Intellectual style is an individual's inclination for using their abilities in a certain manner (Kogan, 1973). It is not creative ability itself, but it may be what distinguishes, pedestrian, little "c" creativity found in our daily lives (Sternbegr & Lubart, 1991) from the more romantic, big "C" creativity. In this case "salespersons, stock clerks and managers" can be as creative as artists and scientists (Amabile, 1997), only with different intellectual styles of creativity.

Adaption-Innovation

Kirton (1976) explains creativity comes in two flavors, adaptive and innovative. These styles are independent of creative ability; adaptors and innovators show equal levels of creativity (Kirton, 1976, 1987). Adaptors make adjustments or incremental modifications to ideas and concepts while maintaining their basic structures. Innovators, on the other hand, are motivated to create new ideas, make new discoveries.

Innovators match the general idea of creativity. They are the artists and freethinkers. Innovators seek sensation, take risks, and do not subscribe to dogmatism (Goldsmith, 1984; Torrance & Horng, 1980). They have higher confidence in their abilities and see themselves as creators (Kirton, 1989). They might produce a greater quantity of output than the adaptors, but this difference comes from their style of experimenting with and revising subsequent expressions of ideas, not from higher creative ability (Kirton, 1987).

But adaptors are just as creative and can produce work that fits the earlier definition of creativity just as well, and in some cases, better than, innovators. Innovators adapt, improve, advance, or find new applications for an existing process or product (Kirton, 1989). They modify old constructs in novel ways (Ward, 1994), form remote associations that lead to creative solutions, and change current solutions into new products or procedures (Brophy, 1998). Adaptors work in groups better, because they are able to accept and modify others systems of thinking (Feldman, 1988). This allows a sharing of ideas and leads to a greater knowledge base for remote associations. The effects of minor adaptations can have monumental creative effects, as small changes to many elements can cause exponential changes when those elements are brought together to form one idea. Adaptor's intimacy with what has been done before in a field increases the probability that their solutions will be appropriate and appreciated.

Mental Self-government

Sternberg (1988b) provides three intellectual styles, describing modes of mental self-government: legislative, executive, and judicial. Legislative thinkers develop their own rules, procedures and ideas. Executive thinkers use existing rules they accept as conventional and effective ways of thinking. Judicial thinkers evaluate the other two style's activities. Sternberg & Lubart (1991) enhance these three styles by adding that they can operate in a either a global or local manner. Global thinking deals with large, broad issues of a problem, whereas local thinking applies to smaller and narrower details of tasks. Individuals that choose global projects are more likely to be seen and heralded as creative.

Recall from the discussion of intelligence the dually divergent and convergent nature of creativity. The creative process needs periods of divergent thinking and convergent evaluation and the ability to judge when each is appropriate (Murdock & Pussic, 1993; Noppe, 1996; Runco & Chad, 1995). In that case, one creative person could show adaptive and innovative styles. An innovator might balance divergent ideation with convergent evaluation (Brophy, 1998). Their innovative behavior shows adaptation, as they revise ideas in search of a final product that meets some standard, either intrinsic or extrinsic, of acceptance; "mosts artists seek the best ways to work within the limits of their resources and chosen media" (Brophy, 1998). This precludes neither that the majority of people show a propensity for adapting or innovating as well as higher proficiency at their preferred mode, nor that certain people are more inclined and able to handle problems with particular natures and processing attributes (Brophy, 1998). But as there should be some an optimal balance between convergent and divergent thinking (Moneta, 1993), further research should focus on whether the ability to switch between styles is innate, learned, or both.

Intellectual Styles in the Texas Creative program

Varying intellectual styles can be seen throughout the program. Student work often shows adaptive styles, as in the incorporation of other art genres such as movie posters or military propaganda into print advertisements. They adapt old product strategies with new selling concepts, extending the identity of a brand or campaign.

Students also strive to push the advertising envelope by producing advertisements with innovative styles and design elements. Adaption of the aforementioned genres shows innovation, as their inclusion is fresh and new to advertising. At a recent, end of the semester critique, a judge remarked that he applauded the efforts to produce ads that did not look like ads.

Students would likely benefit from understanding and identifying their propensity towards adaption or innovation. Brophy (1998) notes that possible problem-person matches can help individuals perform more creatively. Or, especially since a major goal of the program is to produce student portfolios that will help land agency jobs and agencies appreciate diversity (Otnes, Oviatt, & Treise, 1995), students might like to monitor their projects to be sure they show both innovative and adaptive abilities. Students who are aware of their tendency to adapt might focus effort on the points of adaption to distinguish their new effort from the ideas being adapted, whereas innovators might allow themselves more free thinking.

Creative Personality

Particular personality traits tend to identify creative individuals (Amabile, 1983; Barron, 1968, 1969; Eysenck, 1993; Gough, 1979; MacKinnon, 1965; Meyer, 1991). Creatives tend to be attracted to rather than afraid of complex problems (Barron & Harrington, 1981; Helson, Roberts & Agronick, 1995). They have a need for some system of order in their environment (Barron, 1963) and themselves (Helson, 1996; Schneiderman, 1984; Tardif & Sternberg, 1988). They are oriented towards aesthetics (Barron & Harrington, 1981). They desire intellectual novelty (Berg & Sternberg, 1985; Bornstein & Sigman, 1986) with an intrinsic desire to be creative (Brophy, 1998).

They seek power and show opportunism (Helson, 1996; Schneiderman, 1984; Tardif & Sternberg, 1988), their ambition coming from a compelling need for achievement (McClelland, Atkinson, Clark, & Lowell, 1953) and restlessness (Otnes, Oviatt, & Treise, 1995). The restlessness and ambitious urges mark their behavior with some manic-depressive patterns (Jamison, 1993). They feel imbued with and recognize a sense of power or capacity to transform (Feldhusen, 1995; Kirton, 1987; Pickard, 1990). They are addicted to a "flow" of energy, which presents major gratification in their creative work (Csikszentmihlayi, 1988a).

They show great intellectual curiosity, (MacKinnon, 1960). Their openness to experiences and information and willingness to grow are not suppressed or repressed (MacKinnon, 1962; McCrae, 1987). Likewise, they are uninterested in policing their own impulses or impulses of others (MacKinnon, 1965) and show great perceptiveness, receptiveness and deliberateness (Moriarty & Vanden Bergh, 1984).

Creative excellence comes with a high work ethic. Creative individuals show concentrated effort (Amabile, 1983a,b), persistence (Helson, Roberts & Agronick, 1995; Otnes, Oviatt, & Treise, 1995), high levels of energy in their work (Helson, 1996; MacKinnon, 1960; Schneiderman, 1984; Tardif & Sternberg, 1988), and commitment to the creative endeavor (Helson, Roberts & Agronick, 1995; White, 1959). This all leads to high levels of work absorption (Helson, 1996; Schneiderman, 1984; Tardif & Sternberg, 1988), high aspirations, (Helson, Roberts & Agronick, 1995), and an excessive willingness to surmount obstacles and persevere (Golann, 1963). Creatives express a sense of continual career building and efficacy for choosing their work and controlling their career path (Helson, Roberts & Agronick, 1995).

High levels of self-confidence relate to this persistence. The confidence comes, at least in part, from great pride in their unique and distinctive behavior (Barron & Harrington 1981; Dellas & Gaier, 1970; Golann, 1963; MacKinnon, 1962, 1965; Sternberg & Lubart, 1991). It often is blended with self-criticism (Helson, 1996; Schneiderman, 1984; Tardif & Sternberg, 1988). It manifests in assertiveness, (MacKinnon, 1962), a desire for autonomy (Brophy, 1998), independence of work (Amabile, 1983a,b, Helson, 1996; Schneiderman, 1984; Tardif & Sternberg, 1988) and independence of judgment as creative individuals believe in what they think and do (Barron & Harrington 1981; Dellas & Gaier, 1970; Golann, 1963; MacKinnon, 1962, 1965). The confidence is usually well placed; innovators are more self-perceptive (Kirton, 1987), and independence and good self-image predict good problem finding (Smilansky & Halberstadt, 1986).

Creative confidence wells from an internal locus of evaluation (Sternberg & Lubart, 1991). Disinterested in policing their own impulses or impulses of others (MacKinnon, 1962), creatives don't care for others policing their impulses, either. Children who regulate themselves and their environment score higher on creative thinking tests (Carson, Bittner, Cameron, Brown & Meyer, 1994). Central mood regulation and high self-esteem leads to levels of narcissism (Wink, 1991), but not necessarily arrogance. Rather than thinking they are better than everyone else, creatives often do not pay much attention to anyone else. Consequently, an internal locus of evaluation (Sternberg & Lubart, 1991) and control helps creatives to better withstand external evaluation while it decreases creativity in people showing average creativity (Klebba & Tierney, 1995).

Being able to endure external evaluation enables creative individuals to take risks in what they think and do. In general, creative individuals tend to take great risks and seek sensation (Goldsmith, 1984; Kirton, 1987; Torrance & Horng, 1980). When people feel threatened by unfavorable reviews of their performance, they show significantly low levels of risk-taking and subsequently lower levels of creativity (Amabile, 1985). Risky behavior includes choosing unorthodox or unproven solutions and processes, instead of relying on strategies that have worked in the past (Sternberg & Lubart, 1991). People willing to take more risks also show higher flexibility and originality in their thinking (Barron & Harrington, 1981; Glover & Sautter, 1977; McClelland, 1956).

A high tolerance of ambiguity accompanies creativity (Barron & Harrington 1981; Carson, Bittner, Cameron, Brown & Meyer, 1994; Golann, 1963). Besides persisting through them, creative individuals show the ability to set problems aside (Amabile, 1983a,b). They often refuse to review decisions, and in turn evade premature closure (Janis & Mann, 1977). This requires confronting and living with cognitive discomfort rather than withdrawing from a problem until its solution is found (Brophy, 1968a; Wicklund & Brehm, 1976). Tolerating ambiguity allows solutions to develop through serial iterations or ideations; "analyzing them and integrating them takes time" (McCarthy, 1993; Sternberg, 1988). Impulsive and premature conclusions result in inadequate (Sternberg & Lubart, 1991) or less creative solutions, since greater divergency is found towards the end of ideational strings (Eisenberger & Selbst, 1994; Wallach, 1988). The tolerance of ambiguity may be considered a confluence of the above traits, particularly persistence and confidence. The more confident an individual is that they can and will resolve a cognitive conflict, the better able they are to tolerate that conflict (Sheldon, 1995a).

The Personality of Texas Creatives

Elements of the described creative personality can be found in varying strength throughout the participants. Most evident is the strong work ethic and commitment to the creative endeavor; many students become computer "lab rats", ignoring other subjects and spending excessive hours in the computer studio used to produce their work. Confidence pervades the group, as does acceptance of evaluation. Many ask for their peers' brutal judgment.

Invited and uninvited criticism strengthens the students. It can discourage many, and sounds harsh to outsiders. But if they can not withstand such analysis, they probably do not belong in a business where "external evaluation is invited throughout and is inherent to the development of strategy and message" (Klebba & Tierney, 1995). Students should learn to weather criticism and look for the constructive information it might provide. Those that develop immunity to having their ideas roughly criticized will likely be the successful members of a creative staff (Klebba & Tierney, 1995).

Students in the program also learn to tolerate ambiguity. Some begin the program needing constant guidance from the instructors. They leave class remarking that they know they haven't reached the solution, but have no idea what they are supposed to do next with a project. Although they might doubt it, the instructor is actually helping by not explaining exactly what comes next, because there usually is no correct next step. Over time students learn to appreciate this and the freedom that comes from knowing that success can be found in a number of different directions.

Motivation

The personality resource and motivation systems are closely integrated (Helson, Roberts & Agronick, 1995). The creative personality desires to achieve excellence (McClelland, Atkinson, Clark & Lowell, 1953) and actualize one's potential (Golann, 1962), which, combined with persistence and a high level of energy for work (MacKinnon, 1960), provides powerful motivation. Motivation is a significant factor in creative accomplishment (Amabile, 1983a,b); strength and endurance of motivation drives the intense practice necessary for expert performance (Helson, Roberts & Agronick, 1995).

Intrinsic motivators that well from within the creative individual, such as achievement of one's potential (Amabile, 1983b; Crutchfield, 1962; Golaann, 1962), assist creativity better than most extrinsic motivation. The key, however, is not in the locus of motivation, but the individual's direction of focus. Motivation that orients an individual to focus on the task rather than the goal boosts creative performance (Mehr & Shaver, 1996). Creative individuals often set goals of self or process development, whereas less-creative individuals usually set goals on the final product (Mehr & Shaver 1996). Following intrinsic motivation typically leads to a task-focus because intrinsic motivators are integrated with task completion and less salient (Sternberg & Lubart, 1991). Motivation salience should remain low, because too much focus on any outcome, whether an intrinsic or extrinsic goal, will be detrimental to creativity (Simon, 1967). Narrow attention to goals reduces the spontaneity and flexibility of performance that results from high task involvement (McGraw, 1978; Sternberg & Lubart, 1991). The creative personality's tendency to absorb themselves in work leads to a focus on working, not on the outcome (Helson, 1996; Schneiderman, 1984; Tardif & Sternberg, 1988).

Motivation of Texas Creatives

The importance of task-focused motivation can be seen towards the end of a semester. As the semester progresses, attention tends to centralize on having the requisite number of ads for the end of semester critique, definitely a goal focus. To this end, students will revive old campaigns they have worked on in previous semesters or, if they do create new work at the last minute, it frequently shows lower creative effort.

Environment

Creativity flourishes in the right environment (Krober, 1944; Simonton, 1994). Creative output can be linked to environmental variables, including cultural diversity, war, availability of creative role models, availability of resources (financial support) and the number of competitors in a domain (Simonton, 1984, 1988, 1994). If the environment rewards creative effort, creativity can become habitual (Davis, 1986). Creative individuals need appropriate support and assistance to transform experiences and knowledge (Pickard, 1990).

Just as easily as it nourishes creativity, an environment can suppress creative behavior (Sternberg & Lubart, 1991). Support given to individuals, and not given to others, for the development, implementation and employment of new ideas or products influences the notions of what kinds of original behavior are accepted (Harrington, 1990; Holland, 1985; Labouvie-Vief, 1994; Nochlin, 1971; Wittkower & Wittkower, 1963). As discussed earlier, a product is creative only if appropriate judges agree on this assessment (Amabile, 1982a). If judges and the environment do not approve of or find use for a creative product, they will not be preserved and transmitted to others (Csikszentmihalyi, 1988). Judges' opinions depend on their specific characteristics and the field of ideas competing for judgment, so evaluation of creativity can vary from one environment to another. Meeting judges' expectations and competition can force the creative mind to look from everyone else's perspective (Sternberg & Lubart, 1991) and converge to it.

The quality of support an environment offers creativity can matter as much as the quantity. Encouragement and freedom of choice boosts creativity. Children show higher level of divergent thinking when allowed to choose materials they used to make collages (Amabile & Gitomer, 1984). They score higher on creative thinking tests when given autonomy over themselves and control of their environment (Carson, Bittner, Cameron, Brown & Meyer, 1994). On the other hand, they show less creativity when internal control is taken away and rules or external control are placed on their activities (Koestner, Ryan, Bernieri, & Holt, 1984).

Interaction with and awareness of the environment advances creativity. Children show more ideational fluency when they are tested in a room full of objects they can see or touch than when tested in a bare room (Ward, 1969). And working in an environment containing other inventive people increases the likelihood that creative ideas will be sparked through interactions with those people (Sternberg & Lubart, 1991).

The Environment of the Texas Creative program

The program provides a rich and resource full environment. In terms of bricks and mortar, two rooms at the university are assigned to the program: a seminar for general class meetings and a computer studio for the execution of student work. The seminar room walls bear examples of professional creative print advertisements, translucent plastic mats on the tables cover student print ads, and corkboards line the rooms for students to hang their progressing work for others to see and comment on during class. The computer studio provides current computer hardware and software, and stock images for producing the work, more examples along the walls. A ceiling-mounted video projector assists teaching by displaying an instructor's computer screen on a large screen for showing computer techniques, or by exhibiting the program's large library of television advertising reels.

Beyond the physical aspects, the program provides an open and free environment for students to work in. Students "own" the lab and seminar. In the computer lab, they often have music playing from a stereo in one corner or television or videotapes projected on the large screen. Students have painted, repainted, and removed the ceiling tiles from the seminar room wholly on their own initiative. This culminates in an atmosphere where individuals feel free to express themselves, both creatively and critically. Creativity grows, as individuals present ideas with confidence that good ideas will have the support and resources to be developed and that bad ideas will be identified and rejected.

Techniques for Creativity

Training the Resources

When creativity is considered magical or even just irregular, the suggestion that it can be taught or trained seems odd. There is a logical contradiction inherent to trying to induce a spontaneous event (Maltzman, 1960). It is difficult to train someone to think in an unexpected manner because the outcome can not be known in advance (Pickard, 1990).

But as a confluence of the above six resources, creativity can be trained through influencing any six of those components (Sternberg & Lubart, 1991). Teaching individuals to alternate between divergent ideation and convergent evaluation (Brophy, 1991; Noppe 1996) can develop creative intelligence. Knowledge can be increased through general education, and specifically honed for creative behavior if students are lead to assimilate knowledge in a holistic manner rather than discrete categories or disciplines (Baughman & Mumford, 1995; Sternberg & Lubart, 1991), and stored with the knowledge that what can be learned can be transformed (Pickard, 1990). Either an adaptive or innovative intellectual style will help creativity (Kirton, 1987); identifying and understanding which style dominates an individual's behavior might be advantageous to choosing tasks to match that style (Brophy, 1998). Learning to conjoin disparate concepts leads to significant increases in originality in free association exercises (Maltzman, 1960). Instilling self esteem and confidence will increase risk taking, and allow greater tolerance of ambiguity, leading to higher creative output. Motivation that focuses on tasks rather than goals will be more effective in training creativity, as will learning to identify intrinsic rewards of task accomplishment. Creativity is better fostered in a supportive, free and populated environment.

Training these resources is easier said than done. For instance, individuals should not learn certain things. Individuals will be more creative if they do not learn there are wrong answers, that ambiguity is bad, and instead learn to identify and remove similar cognitive blocks to originality (Adamson, 1986; von Oech, 1983). Training in logical thought improves performance on intelligence tests, but inhibits the creation of analogies (Smolucha & Smolucha, 1985). Attempts to develop the creative resources could inadvertently squash creative behavior. Three features of training, the use of rewards, the use of examples, and brainstorming, emerge as strong methods for teaching creativity that become dangerous if used in the wrong ways.

Reward

General behavior theory suggests that divergent thinking, and thus creativity, can be influenced enhanced or conditioned by systematic reward, as can any cognitive response (Maltzman, 1960; Pryor, Haag & O'reilly, 1969; Skinner, 1953; Torrance, 1970 Winston & Baker, 1985). However, reward can be seen as an extrinsic motivator, and the negative effects of extrinsic motivators have been made clear. Individuals working to receive a reward might work harder and produce more output, but the activity exhibits lower quality, contains more errors, and is more stereotyped than work produced without reward (Condry, 1977). Rewarding nursery school children induces the production of less interesting drawings (Lepper, Greene & Nisbett, 1973). Reward becomes a distraction, preventing individuals from becoming fully immersed in a project (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990a, McGraw & Mccullers, 1979), and lowers creativity (McGraw, 1978; Condry & Chambers, 1978), as does being watched while creating, expecting evaluation, receiving a praiseful previous evaluation, contingent rewards and competing for prizes (Amabile, 1990; Hennessey & Amabile, 1988). Highly salient rewards are more distracting, also leading to lower levels of divergent thought (Eisenberger & Selbst, 1994; Hennessey & Amabile, 1988).

The negative effects of reward and creativity seem logical, since classic conditioning models work by reinforcing the repetition of behavior. Reinforcement produces not much of anything other than stereotyped repetition of what works and generates the reward, teaching animals and humans "to repeat precisely what has worked in the past" (Schwartz, 1982). Individuals often believe there is only one right answer, and then confuse the activity that was sufficient to receive the reward as being essential for receiving the reward (Sternberg & Lubart, 1991). They rely on that single, reinforced path to attain the goal of reward, and neglect other possible activities, seeing no reason to divert from the rewarded activity (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990a, McGraw & Mccullers, 1979).

Besides distracting, reward can lessen an individual's desire to create. Dissonance theory states that by inducing people to participate in tasks in which they have no or little interest in without providing reward for their participation, those people will reconcile their involvement by reevaluating the task as inherently interesting (Festinger, 1957). Conversely, over-justifying an individual's participation in an activity they are interested in will lead them to reevaluate the task as less inherently interesting (Lepper, Greene & Nisbett, 1973). So while reinforcement contingencies strive to increase the probability of unlikely or infrequent behavior (Feingold & Mahoney, 1975; Staats, 1975), creative personalities are already attracted to intellectual novelty (Berg & Sternberg, 1985; Bornstein & Sigman, 1986), and desire to actualize their creative potential (Golann, 1962) and achieve excellence (McClellan, Atkinson, Clark & Lowell, 1953). They need little more incentive. After being rewarded for doing these things they already would have done, "individuals will no longer engage in the task without the reward." (Lepper, Greene & Nisbett, 1978; Deci 1975). What was once play becomes work, and ends become means (Schwartz, 1982).

However, extrinsic motivators do not always negate creative accomplishment (Amabile, 1988). The contingency of the reward makes the difference. If reward is contingent on task performance, creativity on the task is substantially lower than if the reward is received regardless of the performance. The contingency leads individuals to focus on the goal and then misdirects attention away from the task at hand (Amabile, 1982b; Amabile, Hennessey, & Grossman., 1986; Balsam & Bondy, 1983; McGraw, 1978; Reiss & Suchinsky, 1975, 1976; Sternberg & Lubart, 1991). Individuals will then overlook subtle environmental elements that might be used in achieving a creative solution (Amabile, 1983, 1986) or exclude from their thinking information that does not seem germane to the problem (Bahrick, Fitts & Rankin, 1952; Johnson & Thomson, 1962; McNamara & Fisch, 1964). Altogether, the spontaneity and flexibility of the creative performance that would result from high task involvement disappears (McGraw, 1978; Sternberg & Lubart, 1991).

Alternatively, unexpected reward that comes after task performance does not lower creativity on future tasks (Amabile, 1987). What's more, excitingly original thinking can occur when such conditions reward achievement (Torrance, 1965). Taking away the reward contingency, the reward somehow becomes more instructional than motivational and reinforces the process, not the outcome (Eisenberger & Selbst, 1994), leading to a desired task-focus. This way, a creative atmosphere that rewards creativity can help it become habitual (Davis, 1986) and increases future creativity or the continuation of creative behavior (Glover, 1980; Glover & Gary, 1976; Goetz & Baer, 1973; Funderbunk, 1977; Winston & Baker, 1985).

Reward influences creativity the strongest when it is accompanied with feedback that links the reward to the process, not the outcome (Eisenberger & Selbst, 1994). The instructive component characterizes the reward as informative rather than controlling. The influence of reward then becomes strongest when introduced during the preparation and implementation stages of a creative process (Amabile, 1987).

So, if reward can effectively reinforce divergent thought, attention must be paid to the level of divergent thought that receives reward. Low-divergent thought can be reinforced, producing more low divergent thought, a learned laziness (Reiss & Sushinsky, 1975, 1976). On the contrary, rewarding high-divergent thought will teach what dimensions of performance are rewarded and individuals will develop the appropriate level of effort to meet the performance dimensions (Eisenberger & Selbst, 1994). Thus, only a wise use of reward promotes creativity (Funderbaunk, 1977; Goetz, 1989).

Reward in the Texas Creative program

Reward in the program has low salience. Considering high grades as reward, grades are not even mentioned in the two higher levels until the very end of the semester. In the beginning level, grading during the semester is coupled with the understanding that only the overall semester grade is final, thereby enhancing the informational properties of grades. Verbal praise in all levels tends to tie strongly to instructive comments, as in "putting this logo here helps with the processing order - good job", linking the reward to the behavior. And, probably less by design and more from just the nature of the beast, awards from advertising competitions are received so long after the creative activity that they less likely reinforce one solution and more likely lead to higher general confidence. Since there is no statistical analysis of the levels of student work's divergent thought, reliably remarking on whether or not the program reinforces low or high divergent thinking is impossible.

Examples

Quite often, creativity is taught through exposing individuals to examples of creativity. Advertising professionals recommend that an aspiring creative should review awards annuals to know "what on earth [they] are shooting for" (Otnes, Oviatt, & Treise, 1995). Composers must develop their musical talent by practicing other composer's pieces (Weisberg, 1998) before writing their own. Attending to examples gives problem solvers domain knowledge and experience. Knowledge in a domain teaches creative individuals the rules and resource limits they must work within (Brophy, 1998; Runco & Albert, 1993b). Knowing "where things are, what has been done, and what needs to be done, how one can go about creating what is needed, and how one's ideas will be perceived" (Sternbegr & Lubart, 1991) and what are the good problems in the field (Tardif & Sternberg, 1988) advances creativity. Knowing what has already been done can prevent reinvention (Sternberg & Lubart, 1991).

But using examples can lead to convergence. Task solutions often incorporate elements from examples that the solver has seen before. In this way, creative solutions are rarely ever wholly original, since individuals typically build on or out of prior ideas (Marsh, Landau, & Hicks, 1996), even when instructed not to (Smith, Ward, & Schumacher, 1993). This cryptomnesia is inadvertent plagiarism. Individuals truly believe their derivative solutions are their own. (Brown & Murphy, 1989; Marsh & Bower, 1993), especially when time has passed between exposure to the exemplar and the creative task. (Brown & Halliday, 1991; Marsh & Bower, 1993; Marsh, Landau, & Hicks, 1996). Examples become "activated information", which is processed more fluently. The individual does not closely monitor the source of the active information and incorporates it into the creative task. The fluent information seems to come easier to the individual who then attributes it to themselves, even when prompted to recall the example (Marsh & Landau, 1995; Smith, Ward, & Schumacher, 1993; Ward, 1994). Creativity will be further constrained if the aspects of the example that are incorporated are less than ideal (Marsh, Landau, & Hicks, 1996) or if an individual takes a misleading cue from an example and follows the wrong solution path (Smith, 1985).

Exposure to examples leads individuals to classify those examples in categories. Solutions to a creative task that seems to belong in that category will often be solved with a pre-existing solution from that category. These strategies that worked at one time might not work now (Sternberg & Lubart, 1991). As more examples are provided, the category structure becomes more developed and narrower, as does the definition of "what constitutes an acceptable and novel addition to the category" (Marsh, Landau, & Hicks, 1996). Then, individuals will have a more difficult time developing solutions that fit into those categories. Plus, as more examples are provided, the individuals' domain of examples becomes wider and the probability that they will have access and sometimes use those previous ideas increases (Ross, 1987).

As in the use of rewards, tying exposure to examples with instruction can subvert the possible negative outcomes. Creative individuals trained to identify, map, and elaborate the features of examples resulted in original and higher quality category combinations (Baughman & Mumford, 1995). Instructing creative individuals to store examples in broad categories (Amabile, 1990; Martinsen, 1993) advances creative behavior. Instruction can lead an individual to see an example as a representation of the process they should follow, rather than the outcome they should aim for.

Examples in the Texas Creative program

Instructors in the program urge students to review advertising awards annuals, advertising reels and magazines, magazines related to art, graphic design and other related fields, and to watch each other. On one hand, using these sources of examples brings students up to speed on what kind of work they should be doing and w