Universitas Paramadina, Jalan Gatot Subroto
Kav. 97 Mampang 12790
Ence Ramli Al-Rashid
Universitas Paramadina, Jalan Gatot Subroto
Kav. 97 Mampang 12790
This paper aimed to describe how young people view creativity as a form of personality. Creativity was appointed as the main theme in this paper, because the creativity is often linked as factor behind the success of one’s life. From the point of view of life, creativity itself is actually a natural part in the life of someone, it is just how people look at the level of creativity and creativity whether a person has, may differ from one individual to another. This paper is trying to raise the issue of whether creativity can strengthen human capital. The unit of analysis of this study is the individual, in this case is young people. Young people is considered as the sample in this study and it is considered because they are potential human capital. Human capital is used as a replacement paradigm of Human Resources (Human Resource), because of a human can not be separated from their knowledge, skills, health, or even values. Method for collecting data is with Focus Group Discussion and surveys. The sample of young people are those whose aged between 17-25 years. Data is collected in a higher education institution in Jakarta. The method of this paper is qualitative research, the technique of sampling is convenience sampling, or in this case the researchers set a sample of 100 people. The problems that is going to be appointed in this research are: (1) how young people view creativity?, (2) if creativity can contribute adding value to an individual?, (3) how youth think about internalizing the creativity into themselves?. The purpose of this study are: (1) to disclose whether the creativity in the young people’s perspective?, (2) whether creativity can make young people have added value compared with no creativity?, And (3) how to internalize the creativity of young people within themselves?. Analysis of data with content analysis.
Keywords: Young People, Point of View, Value, Creativity
Makalah ini bertujuan untuk memaparkan bagaimana pemuda memandang dan menilai kreativitas sebagai bentuk dari kepribadian. Kreativitas diangkat menjadi tema utama dalam makalah ini, dikarenakan kreatifitas seringkali dikaitkan sebagai faktor dibalik kesuksesan hidup seseorang. Melihat posisinya dalam hidup, kreatifitas sendiri sebenarnya adalah bagian yang alami di dalam kehidupan seseorang, hanya saja bagaimana seseorang memandang kreativitas dan pada tingkat apakah kreativitas yang dimiliki seseorang, mungkin berbeda antara satu individu ke individu lainnya. Makalah ini berusaha mengangkat isu tentang apakah kreativitas dapat memperkuat modal manusia. Unit analisis penelitian ini adalah individu, dalam hal ini pemuda. Pemuda menjadi sampel dalam penelitian ini karena mereka adalah modal manusia yang potensial. Modal manusia digunakan sebagai paradigma pengganti Sumber Daya Manusia (Human Resource), karena seorang manusia tidak dapat terpisahkan dari pengetahuan, keahlian, kesehatan atau nilai-nilai yang dianutnya.Metode pengumpulan data dengan Focus Group Discussion dan survey. Anak muda yang menjadi sampel adalah mereka yang berusia antara 17 – 25 tahun. Pengambilan data dilakukan di sebuah perguruan tinggi di Jakarta. Metode penelitian makalah ini adalah kualitatif, dengan teknik pengambilan sampel adalah convenience sampling, atau dalam hal ini peneliti menetapkan sampel sebanyak 100 orang. Permasalahan yang ingin diangkat dalam penelitian ini adalah: (1) bagaimana pemuda memandang kreativitas?, (2) apakah kreativitas dapat memberikan nilai tambah personal?, (3) bagaimanakah pendapat pemuda tentang cara internalisasi kreativitas ke dalam diri mereka?. Tujuan penelitian ini adalah: (1) untuk mengungkapkan apakah kreativitas dalam sudut pandang pemuda?, (2) apakah kreativitas dapat membuat pemuda memiliki nilai tambah dibandingkan dengan tanpa kreativitas?, dan (3) bagaimana cara anak muda menginternalisasi kreativitas di dalam diri mereka?. Analisis data dengan content analysis.
Kata Kunci: Pemuda, Sudut Pandang, Nilai, Kreativitas
Introduction and Literature Review
We, sometimes questioning, what is creativity?, and how to get it?. In our mind, creativity means something new, that is different from what has been there in our surroundings. However, we think that creativity has a closest relationships with young people. Young people, especially those who are late adolescents (17 – 25 years) are associated with people that is dynamic, full of criticisms and eager to do something that is different with the elderly.
Creativity, may be define according to four dimensions, we may call it as the Four P’s of Creativity, they are, Person, Process, Press and Product.
a. Creativity = Person,
Is the effort of defining creativity focuses on persons . “Creativity refers to the abilities that are characteristics of creative people” (Guilford, 1950 in Reni Akbar-Hawadi et.al, 2001). “Creative action is an imposing of one’s own whole personality on the environment in an unique and characteristic way” (Hulbeck, 1945 cited from Munandar, 1999).
b. Creativity = Process
“Creativity is a process that manifest in self in fluency, in flexibility as well in originality of thinking” (Munandar, 1977 in Reni Akbar-Hawadi dkk, 2001).
c. Creativity = Press
Simpson (1982) in Munandar 1999, “The initiative that one manifests by his power to break away from the usual sequence of thought”.
d. Creativity = Product
“Creativity is the ability to bring something new into existence”. (Baron, 1976 in Reni Akbar-Hawadi et.al., 2001).
“Creativity is the ability to generate innovative ideas and manifest them from thought into reality.” The process involves original thinking and then producing. (Albert, R.S. & Rounce, M.A, 1999. “A History of Research on Creativity.”)
Creativity is defined as the tendency to generate or recognize ideas, alternatives, or possibilities that may be useful in solving problems, communicating with others, and entertaining ourselves and others (Beyond the Myth of Genius, by Robert W. Weisberg) . Three reasons why people are motivated to be creative: need for novel, varied, and complex stimulation need to communicate ideas and values need to solve problems
In order to be creative, you need to be able to view things in new ways or from a different perspective. Among other things, you need to be able to generate new possibilities or new alternatives. Tests of creativity measure not only the number of alternatives that people can generate but the uniqueness of those alternatives. the ability to generate alternatives or to see things uniquely does not occur by change; it is linked to other, more fundamental qualities of thinking, such as flexibility, tolerance of ambiguity or unpredictability, and the enjoyment of things heretofore unknown.
According to Wallas (1926), process of creativity as follow:
1. Preparation Phase; is the phase of collecting information or data as a material to solve problems. In this phase occurs on the basis of experiments in mind the possibility of solving various problems experienced.
2. Incubation; is a step in the troubleshooting process dieraminya preconscious nature. This stage lasts role in uncertain times, can be long (in days, months, years), and can also only briefly (only a couple of hours, minutes even seconds). In this stage there is the possibility of forgetting the process of context, and will remember back in the late stages of incubation and emergence of the next stage.
3. Stage Illumination; is the emergence phase of inspiration or ideas to solve problems. In this phase appears spontaneously forms spark, as described by Kohler with words now, I see it is more or less means “oh yes”.
4. Verification phase; is the emergence stage of evaluation activities tarhadap ideas critically, that has begun to be matched with the real situation or condition of reality.
From the above opinions Wallas views creativity as a process that occurs in the human brain in discovering and developing a new, more innovative ideas and varied (the thinking divergence). According to research, creativity started to disappear on childhood toward adulthood. One study has noted the ability of lead to the original idea. Comparative value of the answer “original” (unique) and “standard” (ordinary) is generated by the following
Age 5 or less 90 % originally
Age 7 20 % originally
Adult 2 % originally
The loss of originality is quite amazing. Would not be surprised if before the age of forty, fifty or sixty, more people who feel frustrated or give up when trying to do something creative.
According to Ayan (1997), there are four basic fundamental of seeking creativity, as follow.
a. Find out by asking a question
b. Risk, the willingness to leave comfort zone
c. Energy, the boost of passion
Creativity, Culture, and Csikszentmihalyi
Possibly the most infl uential of the systems models was put forth by Mihalyi Csikszentmihalyi (1988,1990,1996,1999). Csikszentmihalyi (pronounced, approximately, “chicks sent me high”) presented a three-pronged systems model of creativity, including aspects of the person, the domain, and the fi eld. The model has been embraced by other prominent theorists (e.g., Feldman, Csikszentmihalyi, & Gardner, 1994). The model changes one of the basic questions in the study of creativity from “What is creativity?” to “Where is creativity?” It examines creativity profound enough to be described as “the transformation of a cultural system (e.g., chemistry, medicine, poetry)—the incorporation of novelty into the culture” (Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2001, p. 337).
Csikszentmihalyi saw creativity not as a characteristic of particular people or products, but as an interaction among person, product, and environment. Th e person produces some variation in the information gained from the culture in which he or she lives. Th is variation may result from cognitive fl exibility, motivation, or an unusual and inspiring life experience. However, according to Csikszentmihalyi, examining the mechanisms of novelty in the individual is only part of the picture.
Individuals are not creative in a vacuum (except perhaps on creativity tests). They create in a domain. A playwright creates in a symbol system and tradition of a culture. Without knowledge concerning the conventions of theater and script writing, it would be impossible to be a successful creative playwright. Creativity demands a knowledge base in some domain. A creative mathematician must know mathematics. A biologist must know biology. A carver must be able to carve.
Creativity, Intelligence, and Cognition
The relationship between creativity and intelligence might best be described as “it depends.” It depends on the definition and measures used to assess both creativity and intelligence. Perhaps the most common relationship postulated is the threshold theory. According to this theory, below a certain threshold (approximately 120 IQ) there is a strong, positive relationship between creativity and intelligence; the more intelligent the person, the more likely he or she is to be creative. Above the threshold level, however, the relationship is seen as weaker; a highly intelligent person may be highly or only moderately creative. At that point, intelligence no longer predicts creativity.
Creativity and Intelligence
The most accurate description of the relationship between creativity and intelligence was designated “it depends.” If, like Guilford (1986), you defi ne creativity as part of intelligence, the relationship is quite simple: Creativity is intelligence, or at least part of it. Most theorists, however, distinguish between the two, even if they do so somewhat muddily. In most cases, those who hypothesize that creativity is the product of the same basic cognitive processes as other thoughts recognize that the production of novel, appropriate ideas is distinct from the production of accurate, analytical but unoriginal ideas. Yet experience and common sense seem to indicate a relationship between the two. We probably would be surprised to see an outstanding creative contribution coming from a person of severely limited intelligence. Not withstanding the extraordinary accomplishments of some individuals with savant syndrome, the vast majority of inventions, scientific breakthroughs, great works of literature, and artistic innovations appear to be made by intelligent people.
Creativity, Individuality, and Collaboration
Systems theories invariably entail human interaction. Creative individuals exist within cultures and fi elds made up other human beings. Vygotsky (1960) described the origins of creative thinking itself as occurring in social interactions. One of the more interesting questions raised by such theories is whether creativity is—or need to be—an individual process. John-Steiner (2000), after studying creative collaborations wrote:
The study of collaboration supports the following claim; productive interdependence is a critical resource for expanding the self throughout the life span. It calls for reconsidering theories that limit development to a progression of stages and to biologically preprogrammed capabilities. Th e study of partnered endeavors contribute to cultural-historical and feminist theories with their emphases upon the social sources of development. (p. 191)
John-Steiner proposed that the development and functioning of creative processes can be enhanced through collaborative thinking—thought communities—more powerful than that of a single individual. She cited mathematician Phil David, who described collaboration as “almost as though I have two brains” (p. 190). Playwright Tony Kushner (1997) wrote,
The fiction that artistic labor happens in isolation, and that artistic accomplishment is exclusively the provenance of individual talents, is politically charged, and, in my case at least, repudiated by the facts. While the primary labor on Angels (in America) has been mine, more than two dozen people have contributed words, ideas and structure to these plays … Had I written these plays without the participation of my collaborators, they would be entirely different—would, in fact, never have come to be. (pp. 145–146)
Creativity and Complexity
We may have noticed that some characteristics of creative individuals seem potentially contradictory: fl exible yet logical, risk taking yet committed to task, escaping entrenchment yet fi nding order in chaos. Csikszentmihalyi (1996) believed the complex personalities exemplifi ed by these dichotomies are a hallmark of creativity. Aft er interviewing nearly 100 extraordinary creators, he listed 10 dimensions of complexity on which creative individuals appear to develop both dimensions of a continuum simultaneously:
- Creative individuals have a great deal of energy, but also are oft en quiet and at rest. Th ey may work long hours with great intensity, yet value time for rest, refl ection, and rejuvenation.
- Creative individuals tend to be smart, yet naïve and able to look with new eyes on the world around them.
- Creative individuals are playful yet disciplined.
- Creative individuals alternate between imagination and fantasy and a rooted sense of reality. It is this balance that allows their responses to be both original and appropriate.
- Creative individuals seem able to express both introversion and extroversion as needed.
- Highly creative individuals can be humble while simultaneously being proud of their accomplishments.
- Creative individuals seem to be minimally aff ected by gender stereotyping, able to express both masculine and feminine dimensions of their personalities.
- Creative individuals typically are seen as rebellious and independent, yet it is impossible to be an eminent creator without having internalized an existing domain. Th erefore, creative people can be at once traditional and rebellious.
- Creative individuals can be passionate about their work while maintaining objectivity in their judgments.
- Creative individuals, because they are open, experience both suff ering and enjoyment in connection with their creative activities.
Personality characteristics, as opposed to cognitive traits, are less focused on the intellectual patterns or mechanisms with which a person thinks than on aff ective traits: the emotional patterns and personal values that shape thinking and action. Th ese characteristics determine not so much how people are able to think, but how they choose to use their thinking, in what ways and to what ends. Th ere are multiple lists of characteristics from which to choose. In the following discussion, they are synthesized to nine clusters of traits.
Characteristics Associated with Creativity
In the years since the Institute of Personality and Assesment Research (IPAR) studies, characteristics associated with creative individuals have not changed dramatically, but our view of how those characteristics function has become more complex. Researchers have compiled a great many lists of characteristics associated with creative individuals, each slightly diff erent (Barron, 1969; Dacey, 1989; Isaksen, 1987; MacKinnon, 1978; Torrance, 1962). But systems models point out that individual characteristics are not sufficient to explain creative activities. Individuals, however their personal characteristics and experiences might support creativity, still must function in a given domain in a particular time and place. As we puzzle as to whether creativity is general or domain-specific, we must wonder if the characteristics of creative playwrights are likely to be identical to those of creative physicists. Abuhamdeh and Csikszentmihalyi (2004) take the next logical step, pointing out that the personal characteristics necessary for creativity may well vary across both time and discipline. In describing personal characteristics of artists they state,
[W]e propose that the notion of the “artistic personality” is more myth than fact. Although it describes some of the traits that distinguish aspiring artists at certain times under certain conditions, these traits are in no sense required to create valuable art at all time, in all places…..because the social and cultural constraints on the artistic process vary signifi cantly across time and place, the nature of the artistic personality will vary accordingly. (p. 32)
Th e Osborn-Parnes Model
The Osborn-Parnes model of Creative Problem Solving (CPS) was developed over more than 50 years by several theorists. It diff ers from the models of creativity previously described in that it was designed not just to explain the creative process, but also to allow individuals to use it more effectively. CPS is a model designed for action.
The CPS model was developed originally by Osborn (1963), who also originated brainstorming and was highly successful in advertising. He was interested not just in theorizing about creativity, but also in fi nding ways to use it well. Th e process was developed and elaborated by Parnes (1981), and later by Isaksen and Treffi nger (1985). Each version of the process includes a number of steps that involve both divergent (fi nding many ideas) and convergent (drawing conclusions and narrowing the fi eld) stages of problem solving. Early versions were represented in a linear form with alternating periods of convergent and divergent thought.
The processes were designated as fi nding the ideas needed at each state: (a) Mess-fi nding, (b) Data-Finding, (c) Problem-Finding, (d) Idea-Finding, (e) Solution-Finding, and (f) Acceptance-Finding. In the early 1990s a more fluid model was suggested that divided the stages into three general components: Understanding the Problem, Generating Ideas, and Planning for Action (Treffi nger & Isaksen, 1992; Treffi nger, Isaksen, & Dorval, 1994). Th is view presented the states not as a prescribed sequence, but as a set of tools that can be used in the order and to the degree necessary for any problem.
The problems that is going to be appointed in this research are: (1) how young people view creativity?, (2) if creativity can contribute adding value to an individual?, (3) how youth think about internalizing the creativity into themselves?. The purpose of this study are: (1) to disclose whether the creativity in the young people’s perspective?, (2) whether creativity can make young people have added value compared with no creativity?, And (3) how to internalize the creativity of young people within themselves?.
The method of this research is with Focus Group Discussion and surveys. The sample of young people are those whose aged between 17-25 years. Data is collected in a higher education institution in Jakarta. The method of this paper is qualitative research, the technique of sampling is convenience sampling, or in this case the researchers set a sample of 100 people. However, since there are 100 questionnaire sent to our respondents, 30 of them returned the questionnaire.
Results and Analysis
From Focus Group Discussions, that is followed by two groups (different site) consists of six first year a University Students, revealed answers from what they think about creativity, what they think might added value might be resulted from creativity and how to internalize creativity. The questionnaire originated was construct with Bahasa.
Q.1. What is creativity?
a. Creativity is a real form of creative attitude
b. Creativity is an individual potential
c. Creativity occurs in certain areas
d. Creativity is creating new things
e. Creativity is the solution to find a way out of an existing
f. Creativity is a way of thinking outside the customs
g. Creativity is an activity to make something different
h. Creativity is innovation
i. Creativity is inspiring
j. Creativity is something unexpected
k. Creativity comes from subconscious
Q2. What they think might added value might be resulted from creativity?
a. Creativity forms personality
b. Creativity produce an achievement
c. Creativity develop the mindset
d. Creativity will distinguish one person from another person
e. Creativity is part of life
f. Creativity will make a person gets more respect
Q3. How to internalize creativity?
a. Creativity comes from ourselves
b. Media is use to educate and to free creativity
c. Creativity comes from interactions
d. Creativity comes from persons view a problem from various viewpoints
e. Creativity comes from the number of reading on other people’s work
f. Creativity comes from the habit of seeing other
g. Creativity is obtained from having leisure activity
h. Creativity occurs when dreaming
After having the FGD, we construct the indicators to measure what purpose we’re intend in this research. Using SPSS, the results as follow.
|Creativity is a real form of creative attitude||5.93||1.015|
|Creativity is an individual potential||6.13||.937|
|Creativity occurs in certain areas||3.07||1.388|
|Creativity is creating new things||5.80||1.789|
|Creativity is the solution to find a way out of an existing||5.63||1.159|
|Creativity is a way of thinking outside the customs||5.40||1.192|
|Creativity is an activity to make something different||5.73||1.015|
|Creativity is innovation||5.87||1.042|
|Creativity is inspiring||5.63||1.129|
|Creativity is something unexpected||4.83||1.464|
|Creativity comes from subconscious||3.80||1.627|
From above, statement that has the highest mean and lowest standard of deviation is “Creativity is an individual potential”. However, in order, according to the mean, respondents perceived creativity as:
1. …a real form of creative attitude
3. …creating new things
4. …an activity to make something different
6. …is the solution to find a way of an existing
7. …is a way of thinking outside the customs
8. …is something unexpected
9. …comes from subconscious
10. …occurs in certain areas
The result, may be analyze, that majority of respondents do perceived that creativity is an individual potential. But, on the other hand, they perceived less agree on perceiving creativity comes from subconscious. Therefore, we may assume that the respondents would feel agree if creativity comes from consciousness.
|Creativity forms personality||4.90||1.269|
|Creativity produce an achievement||5.63||.999|
|Creativity develop the mindset||5.97||1.066|
|Creativity will distinguish one person from another person||5.53||1.358|
|Creativity is part of life||5.57||1.104|
|Creativity will make a person gets more respect||5.17||1.440|
From above, statement that has the highest mean is “Creativity develop the mindset”. However, the lowest standard deviation is “Creativity produce an achievement”. Orderly, according to mean, respondents perceived added value of creativity, as follow:
1. …produce an achievement
2. …part of life
3. …will distinguish one person from another person
4. …will make a person gets more respect
5. …forms personality
The result, may be analyze, that majority of respondents do perceived that creativity would develop the mindset, as an added value. However, though this statement was the highest mean, is has 1.066 as standard deviations. On the other hand, the statement “Creativity forms personality” was the lowest mean. Therefore, we may assume that the respondent would feel agree if creativity does not form personality.
|Creativity comes from ourselves||4.00||1.762|
|Media is use to educate and to free creativity||4.67||1.155|
|Creativity comes from interactions||4.70||1.291|
|Creativity comes from persons view a problem from various viewpoints||5.23||.898|
|Creativity comes from the number of reading on other people’s work||5.23||1.006|
|Creativity comes from the habit of seeing other||5.30||.988|
|Creativity is obtained from having leisure activity||4.97||1.159|
|Creativity occurs when dreaming||4.13||1.548|
From above, statement that has the highest mean is “Creativity comes from the habit of seeing other”. But, according to the standard deviation, “Creativity comes from persons view a problem from various viewpoints”. Orderly, according to mean, respondents perceived on how to internalize creativity, as follow:
1. …comes from persons view problem from various viewpoints
2. …comes from the number of reading on other peoples work
3. …is obtained from having leisure activity
4. …comes from interactions
5. … media is use to educate and to free creativity
6. …occurs when dreaming
7. …comes from ourselves
The result, may be analyze, that the majority of respondents do perceived that creativity comes from the habit of seeing other, or we may conclude it comes from observing others. But, however, from the standard deviation, the lowest one is creativity comes from persons view a problem from various viewpoints. On the other hand, the statement, creativity comes from ourselves was the lowest in mean. We may assume that the respondents would feel agree with the statement if it is stated creativity was not come from ourselves, meaning that there is an external factor to internalize creativity.
This research is seeks to have an understanding on how young people perceived creativity. Their respond shows in two different ways, from FGD and questionnaire. Both FGD and questionnaire following the literature stated above, especially the Four P’s of Creativity. However, responds on the second and third problem statement may not following the literature stated above. For the second problem statement, respondent perceived that creativity develop mindset as an added value. However, interesting to find out that on how to internalize creativity, the respondents perceived less on creativity comes from us, this might give reason that creativity needs a help from externality to stimulate the mind. Respondents perceived that creativity comes from the habit of seeing other, which may mean that creativity comes from observing others. By observing, we may seek for opportunity. Also, that creativity comes from persons view a problem from various viewpoints.
Ayan. E. Jordan. (1997), 10 Ways to Free Your Creative Spirit and Find Your Great ideas, Three Rivers Press, US.
Buzan. T. (2002), Use Your Head, New York.
Gardner. H. (1983), Frames of Mind : The Theory of Multiple Intelegences, Basic Books, New York.
Kamii, C. (1989). Young children continue to reinvent arithmetic. New York: Teachers College Press.
Kaufman, J. C. & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.). (2006). Th e international handbook of creativity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kay, S. (1994). From theory to practice: Promoting problem fi nding behavior in children. Roeper Review, 16, 195–197.
Keating, D. P. (1983). Th e creative potential of mathematically gift ed boys. In R. Albert (Ed.), Genius and eminence: Th e social psychology of creativity and exceptional achievement (pp. 128–137). London: Pergamon.
Keats, E. J. (1962). Th e snowy day. New York: Scholastic.
Kelley, T. (2001). Th e art of innovation: Lessons in creativity from IDEO, American’s leading design fi rm. New York: Doubleday.
Kendall, J. S., & Marzaho, R. J. (1997). Content knowledge: A compendium of standards and benchmarks for K-12 education (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Khaleefa, O. H., Erdos, G., & Ashria, I., H. (1997). Traditional education and creativity in an Afro-Arab Islanic Culture:Th e case of Sudan. Journal of Creative Behavior, 31(3), 201–211.
Khatena, J. (1992). Gift ed: Challenge and response for education. Itasca, IL: Peacock.
Khatena, J., & Bellarosa, A. (1978). Further validity evidence of something about myself. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 47,906.
Khatena, J., & Torrance, E. P. (1976). Manual for Khatena-Torrance creative perceptions inventory. Chicago: Stoelting.
Khatena, J., & Torrance, E. P. (1990). Manual for Khatena-Torrance creative perception inventory for children, adolescents, and adults. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.
Kilpatrick, J., Swaff ord, J., & Findell, B. (Eds.). (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.
Kim, K. H. (2005). Learning from each other: Creativity in East Asian and American Education. Creativity Research Journal, 17, 337–347.
Kim, K. H. (2008). Meta-analyses of the relationship of creative achievement to both IQ and divergent thinking test scores. Journal of Creative Behavior, 42, 2008, 106–130.
Kingore, B. (1990). Kingore observation inventory. Des Moines, IA: Leadership Publishing.
Kinney, D., Richards, R., Lowing, P. A., LeBlanc, D., Zimbalist, M. E., & Harlan, P. (2000–2001). Creativity in off spring of schizophrenic and control parents: An adoption study: Creativity Research Journal, 13, 17–25.
Kirschenbaum, R. J. (1989). Understanding the creative activity of students. Mansfi eld Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
Kirschenbaum, R. J. (1998). Th e creativity classifi cation system: An assessment theory. Roeper Review, 21(1), 2026.
Kris, E. (1976). On preconcious mental processes. In A. Rothenberg & C. R. Hausman (Eds.), Th e creativity question (pp.135–143). Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Reprinted from Psychoanalytic explorations in art (pp. 303, 310–318). New York: International Universities Press.
Kubie, L. S. (1958). Neurotic distortion of the creative process. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.
Kulp, M., & Tarter, B. J. (1986). Th e creative processes rating scale. Th e Creative Child and Adult Quarterly, 11, 173–176.
Kushner, T. (1997). Is it a fi ction that playwrights create alone? In F. Barron, A. Montuori, & B. Barron (Eds.), Creators on creating (pp. 145–149). New York: Putnam Books.
Lee, J., & Cho, Y. (2007). Factors aff ecting problem-fi nding depending on degree of structure of problem situation. Journal of Educational Research, 10, 113–124.
Leibermann, J. (1977). Playfulness: Its relationship to imagination and creativity. New York: Academic Press.
Lepper, M., Greene, D., & Nisbet, R. (1973). Undermining children’s intrinsic interest with extrinsic rewards: A test of the “overjustifi cation” hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28, 129–137.
Liep, J. (2001). Locating cultural creativity. Sterling, VA: Pluto Press.
Lissitz, R. W., & Willhoft , J. L. (1985). A methodological study of the Torrance tests of creativity. Journal of Educational Measurement, 22, 1–11.
Londner, L. (1991). Connection-making processes during creative task activity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 25, 20–26.
Munandar. Utami. S.C. (2001), Pengalaman Hidup 10 Tokoh Kreativitas Indonesia, Pustaka Populer Obor, Jakarta.
Negus. K, Pickering. M. (2004), Creativity, Communication and Cultural Value, SAGE Publication Ltd, London.
Starko. Jordan. A. (2010), Creativity in The Classroom, Taylor and Francis.
Wallas. G. (1993), The Art of Thought, Harcourt, Brace, New York.