Толерантність до невизначеності як особистісний ресурс розвитку креативності старшокласників
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.63437/3083-6425-2026-2(101)-03Ключові слова:
креативність, творче мислення, оригінальність, толерантність до невизначеності, інтолерантність до невизначеності, старшокласники, освітнє середовищеАнотація
У статті досліджено толерантність до невизначеності як особистісний ресурс розвитку креативності та творчої обдарованості особистості. Представлено результати емпіричного дослідження старшокласників із використанням тесту творчого мислення Е. Торренса, шкали толерантності до невизначеності Д. МакЛейна та опитувальника С. Баднера. Встановлено нерівномірність розвитку компонентів креативності: достатній рівень швидкості, гнучкості та оригінальності поєднується зі зниженою розробленістю. Авторами виявлено тенденційний зв’язок між оригінальністю та толерантністю до невизначеності, що дозволяє розглядати її як психологічний ресурс підтримки творчої активності старшокласників.
Кількість завантажень статті
Посилання
Використані літературні джерела
1. Budner S. Intolerance of ambiguity as a personality variable. Journal of Personality. 1962. Vol. 30(1). P. 29–50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1962.tb02303.x.
2. McLain D. L. The MSTAT-I: A new measure of an individual’s tolerance for ambiguity. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 1993. Vol. 53(1). P. 183–189. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164493053001020.
3. Носенко Е. Л., Шаповал М. О. Толерантність до невизначеності як системоутворювальний особистісний чинник творчої обдарованості. Психологія і суспільство. 2002. № 1. С. 97–106.
4. Литвин С. В. Толерантність до невизначеності як психологічний конструкт. Psychological Journal. 2019. № 1 (21). С. 90–107. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31108/1.2019.1.21.
5. Саннікова О. П., Санніков О. І. Толерантність до невизначеності як предиктор прийняття рішень особистістю. Вісник післядипломної освіти. Серія «Соціальні та поведінкові науки». 2020. Вип. 12(41). С. 98–123.
6. Vasylkevych Ya. Z., Shalnieva P. O., Ryk S. M., Zhyrska H. Ya., Kikinezhdi O. M. Creativity and uncertainty tolerance as a resource for the psychological well-being of an individual. Revista de la Universidad del Zulia. 2021. Vol. 12, Núm. 34. P. 585–603. DOI: https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.46925//rdluz.34.
7. Torrance E. P. Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Lexington, MA : Personnel Press, 1974.
8. Runco M. A., Jaeger G. J. The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal. 2012. Vol. 24(1). P. 92–96. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.650092.
COMMENTS AND CORRECTIONS
The Standard Definition of Creativity
Mark A. Runco and Garrett J. Jaeger
Torrance Creativity Center, University of Georgia, Athens
This Correction focuses on issues surrounding definitions
of creativity. No topic is more central to research
on creativity. There is a clear need to ‘‘correct’’ at least
one all-too-common oversight found in definitions
within the creativity literature.
Not surprisingly, nearly every article in the CRJ at
least briefly defines creativity. The problem is that many
articles cite books or articles from the 1990s or, at best,
the 1980s, when defining creativity, when, in fact, the
definition they are using—which is broadly accepted
and thus can be called the standard definition—actually
has a long history. It is a shame that the early discus-
sions of the standard definition are ignored. Some of
them are rich and remain entirely relevant. They are
cited in the following.
The overarching purpose of all Corrections is to
remind researchers that the field of creativity studies
predates online literature searches. Although the science
of creativity is, in some ways, unique and unlike other
scientific endeavors (see Runco, in press, for details), the
field of creativity studies relies on the scientific method
and is implicitly collaborative. Research builds on pre-
vious research. Originality is a core value in creativity stu-
dies, but this does not justify ignoring relevant research
that was done previously. Good research is integrated
into the larger field, citing what came before, in addition
its originality and utility. Corrections in the CRJ ensure
that due credit is given to earlier research.
The field of creativity studies has roots in the 1950s,
1940s, and 1930s. Domain differences were examined in
the 1930s (e.g., Patrick, 1935, 1937, 1938), and social
criteria of creativity relying on consensual agreement
go back at least to 1953 (Stein, 1953), just to name
two examples. When was the standard definition of
creativity first proposed?
THE STANDARD DEFINITION
The standard definition is bipartite: Creativity requires
both originality and effectiveness. Are two criteria really
necessary?
Originality is undoubtedly required. It is often labeled
novelty, but whatever the label, if something is not
unusual, novel, or unique, it is commonplace, mundane,
or conventional. It is not original, and therefore not
creative.
Originality is vital for creativity but is not sufficient.
Ideas and products that are merely original might very
well be useless. They may be unique or uncommon for
good reason! Originality can be found in the word salad
of a psychotic and can be produced by monkeys on word
processors. A truly random process will often generate
something that is merely original.
So again, originality is not alone sufficient for creativ-
ity. Original things must be effective to be creative. Like
originality, effectiveness takes various forms. It may take
the form of (and be labeled as) usefulness, fit, or appropri-
ateness. The Inaugural Editorial of the CRJ, which
appeared nearly 25 years ago, referred to utility when
describing what kind of research would be published
(Runco, 1988). Creative research on creativity would
be published, and the standard definition was used:
‘‘Originality is vital, but must be balanced with fit and
appropriateness’’ (Runco, 1988, p. 4).
Effectiveness may take the form of value. This label is
quite clear in the economic research on creativity; it
describes how original and valuable products and ideas
depend on the current market, and more specifically on
the costs and benefits of contrarianism (i.e., originality;
Rubenson, 1991; Rubenson & Runco, 1992, 1995;
Sternberg & Lubart, 1991). Value was also recognized
by Bethune—in 1839! He described value as:
The stability of the fabric which gives perpetuity to the
decoration. To mingle the useful with the beautiful, is
Correspondence should be sent to Mark A. Runco, Torrance
Creativity Center, University of Georgia, Aderhold Hall, Athens,
GA 30602. E-mail: runco@uga.edu
CREATIVITY RESEARCH JOURNAL, 24(1), 92–96, 2012
Copyright #Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1040-0419 print=1532-6934 online
DOI: 10.1080/10400419.2012.65009
COMMENTS AND CORRECTIONS
The Standard Definition of Creativity
Mark A. Runco and Garrett J. Jaeger
Torrance Creativity Center, University of Georgia, Athens
This Correction focuses on issues surrounding definitions
of creativity. No topic is more central to research
on creativity. There is a clear need to ‘‘correct’’ at least
one all-too-common oversight found in definitions
within the creativity literature.
Not surprisingly, nearly every article in the CRJ at
least briefly defines creativity. The problem is that many
articles cite books or articles from the 1990s or, at best,
the 1980s, when defining creativity, when, in fact, the
definition they are using—which is broadly accepted
and thus can be called the standard definition—actually
has a long history. It is a shame that the early discus-
sions of the standard definition are ignored. Some of
them are rich and remain entirely relevant. They are
cited in the following.
The overarching purpose of all Corrections is to
remind researchers that the field of creativity studies
predates online literature searches. Although the science
of creativity is, in some ways, unique and unlike other
scientific endeavors (see Runco, in press, for details), the
field of creativity studies relies on the scientific method
and is implicitly collaborative. Research builds on pre-
vious research. Originality is a core value in creativity stu-
dies, but this does not justify ignoring relevant research
that was done previously. Good research is integrated
into the larger field, citing what came before, in addition
its originality and utility. Corrections in the CRJ ensure
that due credit is given to earlier research.
The field of creativity studies has roots in the 1950s,
1940s, and 1930s. Domain differences were examined in
the 1930s (e.g., Patrick, 1935, 1937, 1938), and social
criteria of creativity relying on consensual agreement
go back at least to 1953 (Stein, 1953), just to name
two examples. When was the standard definition of
creativity first proposed?
THE STANDARD DEFINITION
The standard definition is bipartite: Creativity requires
both originality and effectiveness. Are two criteria really
necessary?
Originality is undoubtedly required. It is often labeled
novelty, but whatever the label, if something is not
unusual, novel, or unique, it is commonplace, mundane,
or conventional. It is not original, and therefore not
creative.
Originality is vital for creativity but is not sufficient.
Ideas and products that are merely original might very
well be useless. They may be unique or uncommon for
good reason! Originality can be found in the word salad
of a psychotic and can be produced by monkeys on word
processors. A truly random process will often generate
something that is merely original.
So again, originality is not alone sufficient for creativ-
ity. Original things must be effective to be creative. Like
originality, effectiveness takes various forms. It may take
the form of (and be labeled as) usefulness, fit, or appropri-
ateness. The Inaugural Editorial of the CRJ, which
appeared nearly 25 years ago, referred to utility when
describing what kind of research would be published
(Runco, 1988). Creative research on creativity would
be published, and the standard definition was used:
‘‘Originality is vital, but must be balanced with fit and
appropriateness’’ (Runco, 1988, p. 4).
Effectiveness may take the form of value. This label is
quite clear in the economic research on creativity; it
describes how original and valuable products and ideas
depend on the current market, and more specifically on
the costs and benefits of contrarianism (i.e., originality;
Rubenson, 1991; Rubenson & Runco, 1992, 1995;
Sternberg & Lubart, 1991). Value was also recognized
by Bethune—in 1839! He described value as:
The stability of the fabric which gives perpetuity to the
decoration. To mingle the useful with the beautiful, is
Correspondence should be sent to Mark A. Runco, Torrance
Creativity Center, University of Georgia, Aderhold Hall, Athens,
GA 30602. E-mail: runco@uga.edu
CREATIVITY RESEARCH JOURNAL, 24(1), 92–96, 2012
Copyright #Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1040-0419 print=1532-6934 online
DOI: 10.1080/10400419.2012.65009
9. Furnham A., Marks J. Tolerance of ambiguity: A review of the recent literature. Psychology. 2013. Vol. 4(9). P. 717–728. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2013.49102.
10. Stoycheva K. Tolerance for ambiguity, creativity, and personality. Bulgarian Journal of Psychology. 2010. Vol. 1–4. P. 178–188.
11. Tegano D. W. Relationship of tolerance of ambiguity and playfulness to creativity. Psychological Reports. 1990. Vol. 66(3). P. 1047–1056. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1990.66.3.1047.
12. Zenasni F., Besançon M., Lubart T. Creativity and Tolerance of Ambiguity: An Empirical Study. The Journal of Creative Behavior. 2008. Vol. 42(1). P. 61–73. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2008.tb01080.x.
13. Зав’язкіна Н., Яценко В. Інтолерантність до невизначеності як чинник соціальної тривожності у студентської молоді. Проблеми сучасної психології. 2021. Вип. 52. С. 39–60. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32626/2227-6246.2021-52.39-60.
14. Trofimov A., Zabolotna V. Tolerance to uncertainty as a factor in the mental health of the population in conditions of war. Соціально-правові студії. 2023. Т. 6, № 3. С. 189-201. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32518/sals3.2023.189.
15. Березовська Л. Толерантність до невизначеності та психологічне благополуччя молоді. Проблеми екстремальної та кризової психології. 2025. № 2(10). С. 117–130. DOI: https://doi.org/10.52363/dcpp-2025.2.10.
16. Методики дослідження психічного здоров’я та благополуччя персоналу організацій: психологічний практикум / Л. М. Карамушка, О. В. Креденцер, К. В. Терещенко, В. І. Лагодзінська, В. М. Івкін, О. С. Ковальчук; за ред. Л. М. Карамушки. Київ: Інститут психології імені Г. С. Костюка НАПН України, 2023. 76 с.
References
1. Budner, S. (1962). Intolerance of ambiguity as a personality variable. Journal of Personality, 30(1), 29-50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1962.tb02303.x
2. McLain, D. L. (1993). The MSTAT-I: A new measure of an individual’s tolerance for ambiguity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53(1), 183-189. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164493053001020
3. Nosenko, E. L., & Shapoval, M. O. (2002). Tolerantnist do nevyznachenosti yak systemoutvoriuvalnyi osobystisnyi chynnyk tvorchoi obdarovanosti [Tolerance for ambiguity as a system-forming personal factor of creative giftedness]. Psykholohiia i suspilstvo – Psychology and Society, 1, 97-106 [in Ukrainian].
4. Lytvyn, S. V. (2019). Tolerantnist do nevyznachenosti yak psykholohichnyi konstrukt [Tolerance for ambiguity as a psychological construct]. Psychological Journal, 1(21), 90-107. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31108/1.2019.1.21 [in Ukrainian].
5. Sannikova, O. P., & Sannikov, O. I. (2020). Tolerantnist do nevyznachenosti yak predyktor pryiniattia rishen osobystistiu [Tolerance for ambiguity as a predictor of personal decision-making]. Visnyk pisliadyplomnoi osvity. Seriia «Sotsialni ta povedinkovi nauky» – Bulletin of Postgraduate Education. Series: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 12(41), 98-123 [in Ukrainian].
6. Vasylkevych, Ya. Z., Shalnieva, P. O., Ryk, S. M., Zhyrska, H. Ya., & Kikinezhdi, O. M. (2021). Creativity and uncertainty tolerance as a resource for the psychological well-being of an individual. Revista de la Universidad del Zulia, 12(34), 585-603. DOI: https://doi.org/10.46925/rdluz.34
7. Torrance, E. P. (1974). Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Lexington, MA: Personnel Press.
8. Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 92-96. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.650092
9. Furnham, A., & Marks, J. (2013). Tolerance of ambiguity: A review of the recent literature. Psychology, 4(9), 717-728. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2013.49102
10. Stoycheva, K. (2010). Tolerance for ambiguity, creativity, and personality. Bulgarian Journal of Psychology, 1-4, 178-188.
11. Tegano, D. W. (1990). Relationship of tolerance of ambiguity and playfulness to creativity. Psychological Reports, 66(3), 1047-1056. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1990.66.3.1047.
12. Zenasni, F., Besançon, M., & Lubart, T. (2008). Creativity and tolerance of ambiguity: An empirical study. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 42(1), 61–73. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2008.tb01080.x
13. Zaviazkina, N., & Yatsenko, V. (2021). Intolerantnist do nevyznachenosti yak chynnyk sotsialnoi tryvozhnosti u studentskoi molodi [Intolerance of ambiguity as a factor of social anxiety among students]. Problemy suchasnoi psykholohii – Problems of Modern Psychology, 52, 39-60. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32626/2227-6246.2021-52.39-60 [in Ukrainian].
14. Trofimov, A., & Zabolotna, V. (2023). Tolerance to uncertainty as a factor in the mental health of the population in conditions of war. Sotsialno-pravovi studii – Socio-Legal Studies, 6(3), 189-201. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32518/sals3.2023.189
15. Berezovska, L. (2025). Tolerantnist do nevyznachenosti ta psykholohichne blahopoluchchia molodi [Tolerance for ambiguity and psychological well-being of youth]. Problemy ekstremalnoi ta kryzovoi psykholohii – Problems of Extreme and Crisis Psychology, 2(10), 117-130. DOI: https://doi.org/10.52363/dcpp-2025.2.10 [in Ukrainian].
16. Karamushka, L. M. (Ed.), Kredentser, O. V., Tereshchenko, K. V., Lahodzinska, V. I., Ivkin, V. M., & Kovalchuk, O. S. (2023). Metodyky doslidzhennia psykhichnoho zdorovia ta blahopoluchchia personalu orhanizatsii: psykholohichnyi praktykum [Methods for studying mental health and well-being of organizational staff: A psychological practicum]. Kyiv, 76 p. [in Ukrainian].
