Saturday, January 11, 2020

Adoption of Robotic Surgery for Common Surgical Procedures, (169 404 patients in 73 hospitals): The use of robotic surgery for all general surgery procedures increased from 1.8% to 15.1%, 2012-2018

Trends in the Adoption of Robotic Surgery for Common Surgical Procedures. Kyle H. Sheetz, Jake Claflin, Justin B. Dimick. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(1):e1918911. January 10, 2020, doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.18911

Key Points
Question  Given concerns that robotic surgery is increasing for common surgical procedures with limited evidence and unclear clinical benefit, how is the use of robotic surgery changing over time?

Findings  In this cohort study of 169 404 patients in 73 hospitals, the use of robotic surgery for all general surgery procedures increased from 1.8% to 15.1% from 2012 to 2018. Hospitals that launched robotic surgery programs had a broad and immediate increase in the use of robotic surgery, which was associated with a decrease in traditional laparoscopic minimally invasive surgery.

Meaning  These findings highlight a need to continually monitor the adoption of robotic surgery to ensure that enthusiasm for new technology does not outpace the evidence needed to use it in the most effective clinical contexts.

Importance  Increasing use of robotic surgery for common surgical procedures with limited evidence and unclear clinical benefit is raising concern. Analyses of population-based trends in practice and how hospitals’ acquisition of robotic surgical technologies is associated with their use are limited.

Objective  To characterize trends in the use of robotic surgery for common surgical procedures.

Design, Setting, and Participants  This cohort study used clinical registry data from Michigan from January 1, 2012, through June 30, 2018. Trends were characterized in the use of robotic surgery for common procedures for which traditional laparoscopic minimally invasive surgery was already considered a safe and effective approach for most surgeons when clinically feasible. A multigroup interrupted time series analysis was performed to determine how procedural approaches (open, laparoscopic, and robotic) change after hospitals launch a robotic surgery program. Data were analyzed from March 1 through April 19, 2019.

Exposures  Initiation of robotic surgery.

Main Outcomes and Measures  Procedure approach (ie, robotic, open, or laparoscopic).

Results  The study cohort included 169 404 patients (mean [SD] age, 55.4 [16.9] years; 90 595 women [53.5%]) at 73 hospitals. The use of robotic surgery increased from 1.8% in 2012 to 15.1% in 2018 (8.4-fold increase; slope, 2.1% per year; 95% CI, 1.9%-2.3%). For certain procedures, the magnitude of the increase was greater; for example, for inguinal hernia repair, the use of robotic surgery increased from 0.7% to 28.8% (41.1-fold change; slope, 5.4% per year; 95% CI, 5.1%-5.7%). The use of robotic surgery increased 8.8% in the first 4 years after hospitals began performing robotic surgery (2.8% per year; 95% CI, 2.7%-2.9%). This trend was associated with a decrease in laparoscopic surgery from 53.2% to 51.3% (difference, −1.9%; 95% CI, −2.2% to −1.6%). Before adopting robotic surgery, hospitals’ use of laparoscopic surgery increased 1.3% per year. After adopting robotic surgery, the use of laparoscopic surgery declined 0.3% (difference in trends, −1.6%; 95% CI, −1.7% to −1.5%).

Conclusions and Relevance  These results suggest that robotic surgery has continued to diffuse across a broad range of common surgical procedures. Hospitals that launched robotic surgery programs had a broad and immediate increase in the use of robotic surgery, which was associated with a decrease in traditional laparoscopic minimally invasive surgery.

The Prevalence of Paraphilic Interests in the Czech Population: The high prevalence of some paraphilic patterns might render their pathologization problematic

The Prevalence of Paraphilic Interests in the Czech Population: Preference, Arousal, the Use of Pornography, Fantasy, and Behavior. Klára Bártová et al. The Journal of Sex Research, Jan 9 2020.

ABSTRACT: The number of population-based studies focused on the prevalence of paraphilic sexual interests in men is very low and for women, the subject remains largely unexplored. The two main aims of this study are to investigate the prevalence of paraphilias and to explore sex differences in an online representative sample of Czech men and women using various dimensions of sexual experience. We collected data about sexual motivations and behavior from a representative online sample of 10,044 Czechs (5,023 men and 5,021 women). In a standardized online interview, participants answered questions about selected dimensions of sexual experience within specific paraphilic patterns: sexual preferences, sexual arousal, sexual fantasies in the past 6 months, pornography use in the past 6 months, and experience with paraphilic behaviors. Our results show that 31.3% of men (n = 1,571) and 13.6% of women (n = 683) admitted to at least one paraphilic preference. Moreover, 15.5% of men and 5% of women reported more than one paraphilic preference. Except for beating/torture and humiliation/submission, in terms of real experience with such behaviors almost all paraphilias were more common among men than among women. Our results indicate that the high prevalence of some paraphilic patterns might render their pathologization problematic.


Following the main aims of this study, we collected data on
the prevalence of paraphilic sexual interests and paraphilia in
five dimensions of sexual experience using a large and representative online sample of Czech men and women (N =
10,044). We found a relatively high general prevalence of
paraphilias in the population: 31.3% of men and 13.6% of
women admitted preference for at least one paraphilia. The
most prevalent paraphilic patterns across all dimensions (in
both men and women) were voyeurism, frotteurism/toucherism, and fetishism. Their prevalence exceeded statistical criteria for rare (less than 2.3%) or unusual (less than 15.9%)
population phenomena. Paraphilias and paraphilic interests
including paraphilic objects (i.e., not phenotypically normal,
physically mature, consenting human partners, as noted in the
definition of paraphilia in DSM-5; APA, 2013) were uncommon, especially in women where their prevalence was close to
zero. We also found that very few of the individuals who
indicated a strong preference for some paraphilic pattern
sought the help of health-care professionals.
In all dimensions, we confirmed a higher prevalence of
paraphilias in men than in women, the only exception being
paraphilic patterns related to BDSM practices such as beating/
torture and humiliation/submission, which were in some
dimensions more common in women. With the exception of
differences in the most prevalent paraphilic patterns (voyeurism, frotteurism/toucherism, and fetishism), which reached
moderate effect sizes, the effect sizes were either statistically
negligible or low. Associations between the dimensions of
sexual experience (Preference, Arousal, Fantasy, Porn Use,
and Behavior) were all significant and of moderate or large
effect sizes, with high internal consistency across dimensions
in all paraphilias. This suggests that assessments of paraphilia
and paraphilic interests should indeed treat all dimensions of
sexual experience as relevant.
Our findings are in line with a recent study by Joyal and
Carpentier (2017), especially with respect to the behavioral
dimension of paraphilia (“I often behave in line with
a paraphilic pattern”), the desire to engage in a paraphilic behavior (“I absolutely wish to experience …”), and regarding the
dimension of Preference. Similar to Joyal and Carpentier (2017),
the prevalence rates we found are higher than those found in
older, mostly non-representative surveys undertaken in the
1990s or earlier (e.g., Janus & Janus, 1993). These surveys were
conducted prior to the social change which led to a higher
acceptance of unusual sexual preferences and prior to the cultural spread (via, e.g., popular literature) of unusual practices
such as BDSM. This cultural shift took place mainly in recent
decades (Peter & Valkenburg, 2006). We found a relatively high
general prevalence of any paraphilia and especially in the case of
voyeurism, fetishism, and toucherism/frotteurism (across all
dimensions), the rates exceed statistical norms for being rare
or unusual. Earlier studies (e.g., Ahlers et al., 2011; Dawson et al.,
2016; Joyal & Carpentier, 2017) have also demonstrated high
prevalence of voyeurism, fetishism, frotteurism/toucherism, and
sadism/masochism, which suggests that a priori labeling of these
patterns as atypical or pathological may be at least problematic.
However, high numbers of these patterns could also be false
positives due to discrepancies in definitions of paraphilic patterns. For example, not all studies (including ours) clearly specify
the potential victim as being unaware of the behavior in definition, which is key to acknowledge a pattern as paraphilic and is
present in the ICD-10 definition (e.g., “carried out without the
observed people being aware”). Another important factor is
intentionality of voyeuristic or toucheristic/frotteuristic acts,
which is rarely included in questionnaires and thus, behaviors
which happened by chance are not always excluded from the
behavioral dimension.
Based on these results, we would like to argue that one
ought to make a strict distinction not only between paraphilic
interests and paraphilias but also between paraphilias as variants of sexuality and paraphilic disorders that should be
treated (and acknowledged by the DSM – 5). Moreover, in
the light of a recent modification in the ICD 11, which
removed sadomasochism, fetishism, and transvestism from
its list of paraphilias, thus diverging significantly from the
DSM-5, it seems even more important to use as precise
a language as possible when speaking about these subjects.
High prevalence does not, however, imply that the affected
individuals do not find life with their preference in current
society problematic. Studies on individuals with paraphilic
interests (such as pedophilia) show increased rates of personality disturbances, mood disorders, and intimacy deficits
(Gerwinn et al., 2018; Raymond et al., 1999), which can be
related to their sexual preference. It might also be a result of
the stigmatization stress that these individuals face in contemporary societies (e.g., Jahnke, 2018).
It should be noted, though, that due to methodological
differences, comparisons of the prevalence of paraphilic patterns reported by different studies can be problematic.
Different authors use different questions (for instance, asking
about “experience with a behavior” is different from asking
about “desire for a behavior”, with the latter likely to yield
higher prevalence), different scales, and different criteria, so
that some authors, for example, report any arousal higher
than zero (Dawson et al., 2016), whereas others, such as
ourselves and Joyal and Carpentier (2017), report only strong
arousal. Meta-analytic comparison of existing studies based
on unified criteria and transformed scales may be needed to
gain a more accurate view of similarities and differences
between surveys, let alone entire nations and cultures.
In line with our hypothesis and with previous research (e.g.,
Ahlers et al., 2011; Dawson et al., 2016; Joyal & Carpentier, 2017;
Makanjuola, Adegunloye, & Adelekan, 2008; Oliveira Júnior &
Abdo, 2010), we found that paraphilias are more common
among men than among women in all dimensions of sexual
experience. Compared to 13.6% of women, almost one-third of
men admitted to the presence of at least one paraphilia in the
dimension of Preference. In the dimension of Arousal, the
differences were even greater: 40.2% of men compared to
18.7% of women. In the remaining dimensions of Porn Use,
Fantasy, and Behavior, the prevalence was over 20% in men and
5% in women. Regarding the type of paraphilia, we found support for the prediction that sex differences would be present in
all paraphilic patterns except for activities related to BDSM
practices. This result is partly congruent with previous research
(Joyal & Carpentier, 2017) in the sense that one could expect
a comparable prevalence of complementary activities. This was
mostly seen in the Behavior dimension (prevalence in men:
beating and torture 1.6%, humiliation/submission 2.2%; prevalence in women: beating and torture 1.9%, humiliation/submission 2.1%).
Our study also shows that paraphilias and paraphilic
interests involving unusual targets (e.g., pedophilia, zoophilia, hebephilia) are less common than paraphilic patterns
involving unusual activities. In women, the prevalence of
interest in paraphilic objects was close to zero. This is in
line with evolutionary logic which highlights the importance
of appropriate mate choice for reproductive success and
inclusive fitness of both sexes. The choice of a partner
with suitable reproduction-relevant characteristics, i.e., phenotypically normal, physically mature, consenting human
partners as noted in the definition of paraphilia in DSM-5
(APA, 2013), is subject to intense selection and leaves less
space for errors and mutations. This holds particularly for
women, in whom the cost of reproduction and offspring
nurture is higher than in men (Trivers, 1972). When it
comes to extreme options, such as paraphilic objects or
unusual partners, one can thus expect women to be more
selective in their mate choice than men are.
Moreover, Dawson et al. (2016) suggested that sex differences
in the prevalence of paraphilias could be linked to the level of sex
drive which is on average higher among men than among
women (Baumeister et al., 2001; Lippa, 2006). Higher sex drive
motivates interest in paraphilic activities. Furthermore, this
assumption is in line with studies which showed that high sex
drive is linked to diverse sexual activities and could also lower
the baseline of sexual aversion and disgust (Baumeister et al.,
2001; de Jong, van Overveld, & Borg, 2013).
In regard to the possibility of socio-sexual explanations of sex
differences e.g., women being more sexually restricted by society
than men (Bhugra, Popelyuk, & McMullen, 2010), it must be
noted that studies from across the world examining societies
with various levels of restrictiveness (from very liberal to very
conservative), all show higher prevalence of paraphilic interests
and paraphilia in men. Interestingly, Långström and Seto (2006)
found that the immigrant status of a respondent was not
a significant correlate of paraphilic behavior and based on their
findings, these authors claimed that “paraphilia-like behavior is
not specific to sociocultural subgroups” (p. 433).
The abovementioned theoretical explanations could also
account for sex differences and ought to be further explored in
detail. Doing so, however, was beyond the scope of the present
study. Nevertheless, it should be noted that with the exception of
sex differences in the most prevalent paraphilic patterns (voyeurism, frotteurism/toucherism, and fetishism), which were of
moderate effect size, differences between the prevalence of studied patterns were of negligible or low effect size.
The surprisingly low percentage of people with paraphilias
who confided in health-care professionals found in our study
could be the cause of some concern for public safety and
health policies because it indicates that most people with
paraphilias tend to remain undetected until they violate the
law. This finding may be specific to the Czech society (we
have no comparison data from other countries) and it may be
due to either a low need of external management of paraphilias on the part of affected individuals, due to the lack of an
effective system of help and prevention on the part of the
society, and at least in some cases, also due to a denial of one’s
own sexual problems. Of importance may also be the extreme
stigmatization of paraphiles (e.g., Jahnke, Schmidt, Geradt, &
Hoyer, 2015), which lowers the likelihood of contacting
a health-care professional. In line with this explanation, individuals who admitted to pedophilia reported by far the lowest
level of help seeking (the percentage in our sample was even
lower than in Dombert et al., 2016, where 12.3% of pedophiles
reported they think about seeking professional help). This is
associated with the fact that pedophilic interest is heavily
stigmatized (for an overview, see Jahnke, 2018). Further
exploration of this subject is clearly needed.
The high internal consistency found across dimensions of
sexual experience in most paraphilic patterns indicates that the
results of various studies could perhaps be compared by proxy,
that is, by using a different dimension highly correlated with the
one in question. Based on our findings, the use of composite or
factor scores is justified and could be recommended for future
research. Nevertheless, in some paraphilias, we also found some
interesting differences between their dimensions. For instance,
zoophilia was the only paraphilia that displayed low levels of
internal consistency across the tested dimensions for both men
and women. It may thus seem that zoophilia-like behaviors may
not be a manifestation of real zoophilic preference but rather of a
different paraphilia (for instance, BDSM practices can involve
sex with animals but the purpose is to humiliate a partner). In
women, low levels of internal consistency were found also in
other paraphilias, namely those involving human paraphilic
subjects (hebephilia and pedophilia) and in activities involving
crossdressing (autoandrophilia and transvestitism). Mostly,
however, we found a notable discrepancy between behavioral
aspects (Behavior, Porn Use) and other ratings of preference,
which indicates that fantasies, preferences, and actual behavior
do not necessarily match. This could be due to women being
more fearful of the criminalization of sexually inappropriate
behavior or also possibly due to fears of being victimized and
a wish to remain in control of one’s behavior.
In general, our results suggest that behavior might be
constrained by external factors, such as lack of opportunity
(e.g., paraphilic patterns related to BDSM require a willing
partner) or law (e.g., pedophilia, biastophilia, zoophilia).


The following limitations of our study should be considered.
First of all, as discussed above, the prevalence rate is a direct
result of the methodology used and may account for many
differences among studies. Moreover, the number of paraphilic patterns described in the literature (Aggrawal, 2008) is
large but the format of a national survey made it impossible
to include them all. Another methodological concern has to
do with the representativeness of our internet-based sample
and generalization of results based on this sample to the
population as a whole. The mode of contact is an important
aspect of research that deals with subjects as intimate as sexual
behavior and sexual preferences. On the one hand, an online
setting provides an increased feeling of anonymity, so that
individuals may well be more willing to reveal their preferences. Moreover, the online format enables access even to
persons who live in remote areas or unique communities.
On the other hand, this format also makes it more difficult
to control the characteristics of people involved in a study.
Generalizability of our results is furthermore limited by the
fact that individuals without internet access are highly unlikely to get involved (Wright, 2006). Nevertheless, a previous
study which compared two modes of contact (representative
surveys conducted online and by phone) found no differences
in the prevalence rates of paraphilic interests between the two
modes of data collection (Joyal & Carpentier, 2017). We,
therefore, believe that our internet-based data do provide
a valid and important insight into the distribution of paraphilic preferences in the current Czech population.

Anxiety about the robot workforce reduces prejudice toward outgroups, makes people more accepting of outgroup members as leaders & family members, & increases wage equality across ingroup & outgroup members

Jackson, J. C., Castelo, N., & Gray, K. (2020). Could a rising robot workforce make humans less prejudiced? American Psychologist. Jan 2020,

Abstract: Automation is becoming ever more prevalent, with robot workers replacing many human employees. Many perspectives have examined the economic impact of a robot workforce, but here we consider its social impact: How will the rise of robot workers affect intergroup relations? Whereas some past research has suggested that more robots will lead to more intergroup prejudice, we suggest that robots could also reduce prejudice by highlighting commonalities between all humans. As robot workers become more salient, intergroup differences—including racial and religious differences—may seem less important, fostering a perception of common human identity (i.e., panhumanism). Six studies (ΣN = 3,312) support this hypothesis. Anxiety about the rising robot workforce predicts less anxiety about human outgroups (Study 1), and priming the salience of a robot workforce reduces prejudice toward outgroups (Study 2), makes people more accepting of outgroup members as leaders and family members (Study 3), and increases wage equality across ingroup and outgroup members in an economic simulation (Study 4). This effect is mediated by panhumanism (Studies 5–6), suggesting that the perception of a common human ingroup explains why robot salience reduces prejudice. We discuss why automation may sometimes exacerbate intergroup tensions and other times reduce them.

When Robots are Salient, Human Groups Don’t Seem So Different

Psychologists have long recognized the importance of categorization in social judgments. We are much kinder to someone categorized as a member of our “in-group” than to someone categorized as part of an “out-group” even if these people are indistinguishable from each other (Tajfel, 1970; Tajfel et al., 1971). For example, when strangers are split into two groups based on random coin-flips or the color of their nametag, people evaluate those in their own group more positively (and give them more money) compared with those in the other group (Billig & Tajfel, 1973; Jackson et al., 2018).

In daily life, features such as race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, and nationality provide markers with which we can assign in-group and out-group identities. However, events can sometimes prompt social “recategorizations” that override these salient markers, making someone from a different race or nationality seem like part of one’s in-group (Hornsey & Hogg, 2000; Gaertner et al., 1989; Gaertner et al., 1993). Allport (1954) first noted that a person’s ingroups can vary hierarchically, ranging from one’s family and friends, to one’s country or race, to one’s status as human. Allport proposed that increasing the salience of common superordinate memberships can lead people to be more inclusive in terms of who they identify with and who they will cooperate with. Someone of a different race will be viewed less favorably when identity is classified in terms of one’s race, but more favorably when the perceiver adopts a broader panhuman identity, in which all humans are viewed as part of the in-group.

This perspective is now termed the Common In-Group Identity (CII) model (Gaertner et al. 1993), and it can be an effective way of reducing intergroup prejudice. For example, leading people to replace subordinate categories (“us and them”) with superordinate categories (“we”) can decrease prejudice and discrimination (Dovidio et al., 1997; Gaertner et al. 1989; Guerra et al., 2010; Riek et al., 2006), and inter-ethnicity roommates who defined themselves as part of a common human identity were more likely to develop friendships than roommates who defined themselves as part of their ethnic identity (West et al., 2009). Other research has shown that people’s tendency to identify with humanity as a whole (rather than subordinate groups such as one’s community or race) predicts less ethnocentrism and more out-group prosociality and concern with global humanitarian issues (McFarland, Brown, & Webb, 2013; McFarland, Webb, & Brown, 2012). These studies each suggest that prompting people to adopt a panhuman identity can decrease prejudice and discrimination towards out-groups.

We suggest that the salience of robot workers may increase panhumanism and reduce prejudice by highlighting the existence of a group (robots) that is not human. The large differences between humans and robots may make the differences between humans seem smaller than they normally appear. Christians and Muslims have different beliefs, but at least both are made from flesh and blood; Latinos and Asians may eat different foods, but at least they actually eat food. We therefore predict that, to the extent that the salience of robot workers increases people’s panhumanism, it may decrease prejudice and discrimination against human out-groups.

Friday, January 10, 2020

Subjective ethical standards of generosity: Most feel strapped for cash, but believe higher earners are flush with spare money; higher earners report having much less spare money than what lower earners expect

Passing the buck to the wealthier: Reference-dependent standards of generosity. Jonathan Z.Berman et al. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Volume 157, March 2020, Pages 46-56.

•    Subjective ethical standards of giving are reference-dependent with respect to the self.
•    Most feel strapped for cash, but believe higher earners are flush with spare money.
•    Higher earners report having much less spare money than what lower earners expect.
•    Higher earners are thus expected to donate much more than what they self-assess.
•    People are more accurate at assessing the spare money of lower earners than higher earners.

Abstract: Who is expected to donate to charity, and how much should they give? Intuitively, the less financially constrained someone is the more they should give. How then do people evaluate who is constrained and who has money to spare? We argue that perceptions of spare money are reference-dependent with respect to one’s current self: those who earn more than oneself are perceived as having an abundance of spare money and thus as ethically obligated to donate. However, those higher earners themselves report having little to spare, and thus apply lower donation standards to themselves. Moreover, a meta-analysis of our file-drawer reveals an asymmetry: individuals overestimate the spare money of higher earners but estimate the scant spare money of lower earners more accurately. Across all incomes assessed, people “pass the buck” to wealthier others (or to their future wealthier selves), who in turn, “pass the buck” to even wealthier others.

From 2017... Approaches to Measuring Creativity: A Systematic Literature Review

Approaches to Measuring Creativity: A Systematic Literature Review. Sameh Said-Metwaly, Eva Kyndt, Wim van den Noortgate. Creativity, Vol. 4, Issue 2, 2017.

Abstract: This paper presents a review of the literature on the measurement of creativity. Creativity definitions are discussed as a starting point for understanding the nature of this construct. The four major approaches to measuring creativity (process, person, product and press) are reviewed, pointing out commonly used instruments as well as the advantages and weaknesses of each approach. This review reveals that the measurement of creativity is an unsettled issue, and that the existing instruments purporting to measure creativity suffer from serious conceptual and psychometric shortcomings. Research gaps and suggestions for future research are discussed.


From the 2,064 papers identified by the search process, 221 papers were selected based on screening titles and abstracts. Among these, 152 papers met the inclusion criteria. The 152 included papers addressed the measurement of creativity and significant issues related to this measurement. Four distinct approaches to measuring creativity (process, person, product and press), in addition to the most commonly used instruments in each approach were identified. In the following, we first discuss creativity definitions, pointing to the different categories of these definitions. Then, we describe the approaches to measuring creativity and the advantages and weaknesses of each of these approaches, with an emphasis on the psychometric properties of the most common instruments used in each approach.

Defining creativity

Creativity has proven, over the years, to be difficult to define and measure due to its complex and multidimensional nature (Barbot et al., 2011; Batey & Furnham, 2006; Cropley, 2000; Runco, 2004, 2007; Treffinger et al., 2002). Treffinger (1996) reviewed the creativity literature and presented more than 100 different definitions for this concept. Despite these different definitions, the majority of creativity studies tend to employ only a few of these definitions, whereas other studies avoid providing a definition of this construct at all (Kaufman, Plucker, & Russell, 2012; Plucker & Makel, 2010). Furthermore, researchers and educators may use the term creativity to refer to entirely different aspects, including cognitive processes, personal characteristics and past experiences (Treffinger et al., 2002). In addition, researchers sometimes use terms such as innovation, invention, imagination, talent, giftedness and intelligence interchangeably with creativity.

In general, definitions of creativity typically reflect at least one of four different perspectives: cognitive processes associated with creativity (later in this paper referred to as ‘process’), personal characteristics of creative individuals (‘person’), creative products or outcomes (‘product’) and the interaction between the creative individual and the context or environment (‘press’) (Couger, Higgins, & McIntyre, 1993; Horn & Salvendy, 2006; Rhodes, 1961; Thompson & Lordan, 1999; Zeng et al., 2011).

With regard to the process perspective, Torrance (1977), as a pioneer in creativity research, defined creativity as the process of perceiving problems or gaps in knowledge, developing hypotheses or propositions, testing and validating hypotheses and finally sharing the results. Similarly, Mednick (1962) proposed that creativity involves the process of bringing associative elements together into new combinations to meet the task requirements. Guilford (1950) suggested some factors for interpreting variations in creativity including sensitivity to problems, fluency, flexibility, originality, synthesizing, analyzing, reorganizing or redefining, complexity and evaluating. In his Structure-of-Intellect (SOI) Model, Guilford (1975) considered creativity as a form of problem solving and distinguished between two types of cognitive operations: divergent production and convergent production. Divergent production is a broad search used in open problems to generate logical answers or alternatives, whereas convergent production is a focused search that leads to the generation of a specific logical imperative for a problem, in which a particular answer is required. Guilford (1975) considered divergent production process to be more relevant to successful creative thinking.

Focusing on the person perspective, a wide array of personal characteristics and traits have been suggested as being associated with creativity including attraction to complexity, high energy, behavioural flexibility, intuition, emotional variability, self-esteem, risk taking, perseverance, independence, introversion, social poise and tolerance to ambiguity (Barron & Harrington, 1981; Feist, 1998; James & Asmus, 2000-2001; Runco, 2007). However, having such traits does not actually guarantee the occurrence of creative achievement, the effect of intrinsic motivation still remains (Amabile, 1983). In other words, personality may be seen as related to the motivation to be creative rather than to creativity itself, with both of these being necessary for creative achievement (James & Asmus, 2000-2001). Task motivation is one of three key components in Amabile’s (1983, 1988, 1996) componential model of creativity that are necessary for creative performance, together with domain-relevant skills (including knowledge about the domain, technical skills and domain-related talent) and creativity-relevant skills (including personality characteristics and cognitive styles).

By turning the focus of defining creativity towards the creative products, Khatena and Torrance (1973) defined creativity as constructing or organizing ideas, thoughts and feelings into unusual and associative bonds using imagination power. Gardner (1993) stated that creative individuals are able to solve problems, model products, or define new questions in a novel but acceptable way in a particular cultural context. Creativity is also seen as the ability to produce or design something that is original, adaptive with regard to task constraints, of high quality (Kaufman & Sternberg, 2007; Lubart & Guignard, 2004; Sternberg & Lubart, 1999), useful, beautiful and novel (Feist, 1998; Mumford, 2003; Ursyn, 2014).

Finally, regarding the press perspective, that is, the interaction between the creative person and the environment or climate, McLaren (1993) stated that creativity could not be fully understood through human endeavour without taking into account its socio-moral context and intent (James, Clark, & Cropanzano, 1999). Investigating the environment for creativity therefore requires that all the factors that promote or inhibit creativity should be taken into consideration (Thompson & Lordan, 1999). In the componential model of organizational innovation and creativity, Amabile (1988) proposed three broad environmental factors related to creativity: organizational motivation or orientation to innovate, available resources and management practices. Geis (1988) identified five factors to ensure a creative environment: a secure environment with minimum administrative or financial intervention, an organizational culture that makes it easy for people to create and discover independently, rewards for performance to support intrinsic motivation, managerial willingness to take risks in the targeted areas of creativity and providing training to enhance creativity. Several studies have indicated the impact of climate or environment variables on creative achievement (e.g. Couger et al., 1993; Paramithaa & Indarti, 2014), particularly with respect to the initial exploratory stages of creative endeavours in which individuals’ need for approval and support plays an important role in motivating their further efforts (Abbey & Dickson, 1983).

Despite these different perspectives in defining creativity, some aspects are shared by many researchers. Researchers generally agree that creativity involves the production of novel and useful responses (Batey, 2012; Mayer, 1999; Mumford, 2003; Runco & Jaeger, 2012). These two characteristics, novelty and usefulness, are widely mentioned in most definitions of creativity (Zeng, Proctor, & Salvendy, 2009), although there is still some debate about the definitions of these two terms (Batey, 2012; Batey & Furnham, 2006; Runco & Jaeger, 2012). Another area of consensus is that creativity is regarded as a multifaceted phenomenon that involves cognitive, personality and environmental components (Batey & Furnham, 2006; Lemons, 2011; Runco, 2004). As Harrington (1990, p.150) asserted “Creativity does not “reside” in any single cognitive or personality process, does not occur at any single point in time, does not “happen” at any particular place, and is not the product of any single individual”.