Creativity in Design
General Model and Its Verification
ANDRZEJ STRZALECKI
ABSTRACT
The general model of creativity in design is presented. Creativity is seen as a superordinate construct
defined by three lower order constructs: (1) flexibility, orginiality, and fluency of cognitive processes, (2)
freedom and orginality of personal expression, (3) autonomy of an axiologic system. The model has been
empirically verified in two domains where technological and social change is especially manifested: technical
sciences and entrepreneurship. The first study has been devoted to the role of psychological factors of the
creative problem-solving process in the engineering sciences, and the second study to the psychological factors
of the creative entrepreneurship. The results obtained by especailly constructed techniques are presented and
discussed, and the validity of the model is checked.  2000 Elsevier Science Inc.
Introduction
Psychologists have been aware for some time that to understand and to explain
creative mechanisms one has to use multivariate and multidisciplinary approaches rather
than unidimensional models. Efforts have, therefore, been made to construct general
models of adequate explanatory power. Such holistic (systems) models and research
programs have been postulated by many, not always with reference to the term systems
approach, used, for example, by Andreewsky [1]. Examples of this include many investigations [2–8].
The presented model of Creativity as a Style has such a systemic flavor because it
synthesizes various psychological domains via the concept of style [9–12]. Hence, creativity is seen here as a superordinate construct that has been defined through other, less
abstract constructs. A similar method was used by Royce [13] to demonstrate the
structure of the style called “field articulation.”
The systems approach, therefore, stems from an attempt to tackle creativity from
various points of view. These are: (1) the person as the creator, (2) the creative problemsolving process, and (3) the links between psychological dispositions of creative persons
and the styles by which they solve problems. Although the model is mostly concerned
with a person as the creator, it might also be helpful to describe the process of solving
problems, as well as the links between the two. The social, cultural, and contextual
factors of creativity can also be assessed via the model.
Address correspondence to A. Strzalecki, Chair of General Psychology, University of Cardinal Stefan
Wyszynski, Dewajtis 5, 01-815, Warsaw, Poland.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change 64, 241–260 (2000)
 2000 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.
655 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010
0040-1625/00/$–see front matter
PII S0040-1625(00)00077-9
242
A. STRZALECKI
Creativity as a Superordinate Construct
The main aim of the model presented here has been to show that creativity, seen
as a higher order construct, could be better understood and, hence, investigated if one
shows its stylistic nature, i.e., that cognitive, personality, and axiological domains that
have been treated separately until now form a functional whole.
Style is defined here by the accepted tradition of research (e.g., [3, 14]). According
to this, a style may be characterized as “a super-ordinate construct that is involved in
many cognitive operations and which accounts for individual differences in a variety
of cognitive, perceptual, and personality variables” ([15], p. 141). A similar concept of
the multidimensional nature of style is also shared by other authors. It seems, therefore,
that the concept of creativity as a style could play a synthesizing role, as it shows how
the investigated domains overlap and how they form a synthesis on the given level
of measurement.
MODEL
The proposed model of creativity is hierarchical in nature. Creativity as a superordinate construct has been defined by three lower order constructs that represent cognitive,
personality, and axiological domains, usually seen as opposite [7, 10, 11, 16]. These
three lower order constructs are represented, successively, in the vertical dimension of
the model, by various constructs of a still lower order nature (less abstract concepts),
which are generalizations of behavioral correlates. Thus, the construction of the model
followed the top-down direction that reflects a belief that creativity is a complex, multidimensional concept, as well as the down-top direction through the synthesis of diverse
psychological data concerning the behavior of creative people and mechanisms of their
functioning. The method used also consumes conceptual procedures introduced by
Royce for the identification of the cognitive-affective style, i.e., a style that is rich in
psychological processes.
The use of the hierarchical model made it possible to investigate links between
constructs at given levels, but at the same time between levels, so as to posit hypotheses
that relate to horizontal and vertical dimensions of the model.
In the initial version of the model of creativity [17], not shown here, several levels,
upon which the elements that belong to the lower order levels submitted to synthesis,
have been distinguished. On the lowest level some attributes and homogenous psychological traits have been placed. These traits belong to the cognitive, personality, motivational, and axiological domains, and could be found in most of the psychological texts
on the subject as forming the necessary conditions of creativity (e.g., [18]). Psychologists
are aware, however, of the limited explaining power of the homogenous or orthogonal
traits of creativity, for this methodological and epistemic approach led to an artificial
image of human functioning.
The style approach to creativity makes it possible to transcend this narrow, orthogonal, and morphological model of the person in question. Instead, it suggests a hierarchical
and fully dynamic relationships between domains. So, if we transcend from the down
to the top of the model, i.e., in one direction of its construction, we observe the biggest
integration between traits and domains.
On the second level of the model the orthogonal factors tend to group into more
global, complex traits, such as—in the cognitive domain—“Originality,” “Flexibility,”
“Fluency,” and “Visualization.” In the personality domain—“Nonconformism,”
“Strength of Ego,” “Spontaneity and Expression.” And in the axiological domain—“SelfRealization,” and “Autonomous Motivation.”
CREATIVITY IN DESIGN
243
On the third level, these lower order constructs are synthesized into still more global
constructs: “Flexibility, Originality, and Fluency of Cognitive Processes,” “Freedom and
Originality of Personal Expression,” and “Autonomy of Axiologic System.” On the
highest level, these three constructs form a superordinate construct—“Creativity as
a Style.”
INTERPRETATION OF THE MODEL OF CREATIVITY AS A STYLE
The primary condition of creativity according to the model is a high level of
“flexibility, originality and fluency of cognitive processes” that may be identified with
the efficacy of the cognitive system. This manifests itself in searching for and gaining
different variants of the problem to be solved—ingenious solutions, free of fixed limitations, amazed by virtue of the use of concepts from remote fields, which open new
possibilities of applications. The efficacy of the cognitive system may be interpreted in
line with many psychological conceptions that link creativity to the mode of intellectual
(cognitive) functioning (e.g., [19–22]).
The cognitive system is organically linked with the “freedom and originality of
personal expression” interpreted as the efficacy of the personality system. This is
achieved through the mode of the functioning of the ego, as a result of its strength and
flexibility; intrinsic autonomy, lack of inner limitations and inhibitions; and openness
towards new experiences. This openness increases the probability of restructuring and
transforming reality, and has a positive feedback. Because of perceived self-efficacy, it
reinforces the level of self-evaluation and self-acceptance ([23, 24]; see also [16]}. This
approach has a very long tradition in psychological thinking about creativity. It reaches
back to Freud, and especially to Rank, Kries, and in contemporary times, to much research.
“Autonomy of axiological system,” together with the sense of one’s own value,
allows an individual to elaborate the nonconformist attitudes, to formulate intrinsic
programs of action, and to set and achieve remote goals. The strength of axiological
autonomy is thus the final condition of creativity. The concept of values and its role in
human action, especially in science, design, business, and art, also has a long history
(cf. Kuhn’s theory of scientific revolution). However, precise psychological thinking
about its directive impact on creativity is relatively recent, for example, Kohlberg’s [25,
26] concept of the stages of moral development. The system of autonomous values has
the power to generate creative and long-lasting motivation. It leads to the birth of
a product that fulfills substantial and social criteria, and is, therefore, recognized as
creative [27].
The model presented here shows how particular domains in question form an
interwoven structure (system), not just “a combination of intellectual, stylistic, and
personality attributes” ([6], p. 145), but an organic whole, by virtue of which people
are creative.
Verification of the Model
The model of Creativity as Style has been successfully empirically validated in three
independent studies. The first dealing with creative problem-solving processes in the
engineering sciences [10, 11, 16]; the second, not described in this paper, concerning
student motivation for a scientific career [28]; and the third one—concerning creative
entrepreneurship [12]. The first and the third study cover vastly understood domain
of design.
244
A. STRZALECKI
STUDY I—CREATIVITY IN ENGINEERING SCIENCES
Construct Validity of the Model
Adequate, operational definitions of behavior patterns that cover the constructs
of the second and third order were generated and transformed into questions (items).
Following the semantic and psychological analysis of items, a questionnaire was constructed, called The Creative Behavior Questionnaire (The CBQ). A group of 117
outstanding applied scientists and designers was tested with the aid of The CBQ.
Careful factor analysis revealed 10 dimensions that form the psychological space
that covers the postulated structure, and that may corroborate the construct validity of
the model [11, 16]:
1. Strength of Ego—the ability to overcome the stress that is caused by a problemsolving situation. The ability to concentrate on the problem. Efficacy of the
decision making. The low level of intraindividual conflicts.
2. Tolerance of Cognitive Inconsistencies—tolerance of ambiguities, resistance to
specific tensions generated by problems. Tolerance of discrepancies (cognitive
misfits) and information gaps. The ability to toy with concurrent concepts.
3. Spontaneity—self-acceptance. A positive approach to life. The ability to enjoy
life. Active life programs contributing to spontaneity.
4. Flexibility of Cognitive Processes—independence of thinking. Originality in
dealing with concepts. The ability to combine concepts from remote domains.
The facility to use various methods of problem solving.
5. Aesthetic Attitude—ability to give the solution of a problem logical, clear,
coherent, and aesthetic form.
6. Self-realization—the ability to formulate and perform “distant tasks.” Strong
motivation in the long term. Ambition and efficiency in performing every single
new and important task.
7. Internal Locus of Evaluation—readiness to follow the internal system of values.
Independence from external reinforcements. Flexibility in analyzing and solving problems.
8. Autonomous Cognitive Motivation—authentic cognitive interests and motivation of a person. Readiness to set long-term and ambitious cognitive goals.
Satisfaction in solving problems.
9. Originality—readiness to generate new and original solutions to problems.
10. Nonconformism—the ability to stand in opposition to the pressure of the social
environment. The readiness to defend one’s own point of view. The energy to
achieve one’s own goals.
The identified factors made it possible, however, to restructure the initial model
slightly [16] by adding new elements. In the cognitive domain—“flexibility of cognitive
structures,” “tolerance of cognitive inconsistencies,” “aesthetic attitude.” In the personality domain—“internal locus of evaluation,” “originality,” and in the axiological domain—“autonomous motivation.” Figure 1 shows a verified model of creativity as a
style. It seems that it has gained a better cognitive grounding, and also a heuristic power,
as it enables one to postulate additional hypotheses (both in its horizontal and vertical
dimensions) on the functioning of creative people. The model has been empirically
verified against an external criterion to check its explaining power on various aspects
of real life creative situations.
Fig. 1. The verified model of creativity as a style.
CREATIVITY IN DESIGN
245
246
A. STRZALECKI
Empirical Validity of the Model
The empirical verification of the model was based initially on: (a) the development
of an account of heuristic rules useful in problem solving, and (b) on the verification
of the impact of the psychological traits that have been discovered on the choice of
given rules.
Rules in Creative Problem-Solving Process
Assumption concerning rules: the positive role of heuristic rules in solving problems
has been known to experimental psychology at least since the time of Luchins research
([29], see also [30], p. 176). Works on decision making [31–33], on the methodology of
scientific discovery [34, 35], on intuition [36–38], and on computational models of scientific discovery [39, 40] have pointed out that when the Cartesian conception of infallible
rules of discovery has been disregarded, the constructive role may be played by heuristic rules.
One reason for this tremendous interest in heuristic rules stems from controversies
between epistemology and psychology concerning the possibility of overcoming the
Popperian proposal on the philosophy of science related to discovery. It assumes that
the only legitimate form of analysis is to deal with the products of the creative process,
and categorizes studies on the process itself as unscientific. The antinomy: logic versus
psychology of discovery seems, however, not to be tenable any longer [10].
The successful development of rules useful in solving creative problems proved to
be a difficult task. A structural analysis carried out in target domains, i.e., design and
applied sciences, was then needed. With the aid of a method proposed by Scandura
[41], heuristic rules used by designers and applied scientists in various fields were
analyzed. A pool of 144 heuristic rules was eventually chosen and put into statements.
They were subsequently transformed into a questionnaire (The Styles of Solving Problems—The SSP). Thus, the problem was: (a) to discover how useful various heuristic
rules are in a given phase of the process of solving problems (In 1.The Analysis of the
Problem, 2. The Generation of Solutions, and 3. The Verification of Solutions); and
(b) to find out how much the choice of various rules is determined by the individual
psychological structure.
Styles of Solving Problems as Higher Order Rules
Internal properties of rules: the researchers of heuristic rules have observed that
certain rules tend to cooccur in the process of solving problems [21]. For example, Pask
([42], p. 339) has defined this feature of the system of rules as the “internal properties
of closure that render them coherent and unitary.” It was no accident that he used the
term closure derived from Gestalt psychology, for it stresses the holistic and organic
aspect of these systems of rules. It was posited that the principle of “closure” of elementary rules (rules that were contained in the questionnaire) into rules of a higher order
level can be explained by the hypothesis of the efficacy of respective rules understood
in the praxiological sense, namely as the fundamental for efficient action.
Estimates of the efficacy of a set of 144 heuristic rules (presented in The SSP) in three
phases of problem solving, namely Analysis of the Problem, Generation of Solutions, and
Verification of Solutions, were obtained from the same group of creative individuals.
The results were subsequently factor analyzed. Seventeen factors were identified (Table
1). These were structured sets of heuristic rules, which can be interpreted as higher
order rules (“metarules”) or styles of solving problems, i.e., characteristic ways of solving
problems [10, 11, 16].
CREATIVITY IN DESIGN
247
TABLE 1
Styles of Problem Solving Identified with the Aid of The SSP in the Phase of Analysis of the Problem
(AP), Generation of Solutions (GS), and Verification of Solutions (VS)
Phases of problem solving
Styles of problem solving
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
Active and systems attitude towards problems
Responsibility
Transgression
Objectivism
Analogy seeking
Ideal thinking
Modular thinking
Intuitive thinking
Independent thinking
Conservatism
Rationalism
Active attitude towards the problem
Reductive thinking
Openess
Systems approach
Flexibility
Persistence
AP
GS
VS
⫹
⫹
⫹
⫹
⫹
⫹
⫹
⫹
⫹
⫹
⫹
⫺
⫺
⫺
⫺
⫺
⫺
⫺
⫹
⫹
⫹
⫹
⫺
⫹
⫹
⫹
⫹
⫺
⫹
⫹
⫹
⫹
⫹
⫺
⫺
⫹
⫹
⫹
⫺
⫺
⫹
⫹
⫹
⫹
⫺
⫹
⫺
⫹
⫹
⫹
⫹
Style 1. Active and Systems Attitude Towards Problems
Rules that received dominant factor loadings in this style indicate that they are
related to an individual’s involvement in the analysis of problems, as well as revealing
their own systems approach to problems.
Style 2. Responsibility
This style characterizes a prudent and responsible way of looking at problems, and
a desire to make cognitively grounded decisions; it represents a certain perfectionism
and reliability.
Style 3. Transgression
This is a well-known dimension that is understood here as an individual’s ability
to restructure the problem, to transcend the imposed structure of the problem, and to
detach oneself from the limitations imposed upon by the problem. It also represents a
readiness to be flexible and use unconventional approaches that are typical for creative thinking.
Style 4. Objectivism
Heuristic rules that received dominant loadings in this higher order structure represent a rational attitude towards problems; a readiness to make the solution entire,
coherent, and univocal. They demonstrate an individual’s readiness to take a large area
of knowledge into account.
Style 5. Analogy Seeking
This is also the well-known methodological dimension present in every human’s
cognitive functioning. It reflects the search for solutions that are useful and that belong
to different classes. One could say that it is a search for an analogy with something
unknown but adequate for a particular situation.
248
A. STRZALECKI
Style 6. Ideal Thinking
This way of solving problems characterizes an attitude, which consists of searching
for a detailed vision of the problem’s solution. It is assumed that a solution of a problem
could be accomplished by working out the hierarchy of superordinate goals and choosing
an ideal, but nevertheless feasible, solution.
Style 7. Modular Thinking
This style reflects the tendency of a “discrete” way of grasping the problem, i.e.,
to isolate parts (modules) that are of considerable importance for the generation of
the idea solution. This dimension is close to Simon’s concept of “outer” and “inner”
environment of a system.
Style 8. Intuitive Thinking
This style is reminiscent of Westcott’s concept of intuitive thinking, i.e., the ability
to reach conclusions or form a solution without an exhaustive analysis and with the
possession of little information.
Style 9. Independent Thinking
This style of solving problems is characteristic of great inventors who do not pay
attention to limitations imposed on the problems, and do not obey accepted rules or
the achievements of existing paradigms.
Style 10. Conservatism
The conservative style describes a tendency to choose methods that have been
tried and tested, easier ways of solving problems, and a general tendency towards selfcontrol combined with a certain rigidity.
Style 11. Rationalism
Heuristic rules that received dominant factor loadings in this dimension show a
rational, i.e., cognitively grounded way of looking at problems, a certain thougthfulness
in formulating, seeing, and solving problems.
Style 12. Active Attitude to the Problem
An active attitude towards the problem is characterized by an individual’s willingness to address the problem, a continuous attempt to find a solution to the problem,
to be open to unconventional and flexible approaches, the ability to consider the problem objectively.
Style 13. Reductive Thinking
This style enables an individual to reduce the unknown area of the problem and
to find familiar elements. This goes back to the Cartesian tradition, and has been revived
recently in Linstone’s “reductive approach.”
Style 14. Openness
The open style is characterized by a facility to absorb new information, sensitivity
to stimuli, a lack of dogmatism, and a general open-mindedness. This style is an expression of the attitude described by Rokeach and others.
Style 15. Systems Approach
This is a holistic way of problem solving that characterizes multifaceted approach
to problems. It is similar to the well-known methodological dimension postulated by
Weinberg.
CREATIVITY IN DESIGN
249
Style 16. Flexibility
This style of problem solving demonstrates an individual’s ability to restructure
the problem situation and the problem itself, combined with a lack of rigidity and a
self-restricting tendency in looking at problems—an open, flexible, unstructured attitude
to problem solving.
Style 17. Persistence
The process underlying this higher order dimension may be compared to the degree
of involvement in the problem. This is demonstrated by rules that show also readiness
to change the direction of the search. The whole style may thus be considered close to
the dimension described by Osborn as “involvement-detachment.”
TENTATIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE CREATIVE PROCESS
The identified styles of problem solving should be treated only as an introductory
stage in the research on the empirical validation of the proposed model of Creativity
as a Style. The results, however, give insight into mechanisms that facilitate or inhibit
the process of creative problem solving.
The mechanism may follow the pattern, suggested by Scandura [41] of the type:
A → B, B → C, A → C. It seems that an individual solving a problem reviews the rules
he or she knows. This review is naturally not made in a linear way, i.e., departing from
the conditions in which most of the computational models of scientific discovery work,
although it recalls Schank’s process of searching for “explanation patterns” [39]. The
“wondering” that takes place in the space of heuristic rules is probably governed by
laws of associations within rules according to their “stylistic” similarity and usefulness
at any given moment of the search. The process of solving problems would thus not
be of an exclusively rational character, as Schank ([39], p. 238) posits, i.e., not every
rule chosen would be predictable and in accordance with the program.
One may, therefore, accept certain coincidences in searching the rules that leads
to rare and valuable linkages. For example, forms of seeking the maximal diversity of
solutions to a problem may have maximal randomness. “Irrationality” in an individual’s
activity during problem solving would mean roughly that one is not always fully aware
of the goal at which one is aiming and the rules with which the goal can be realized.
The structure of subjective knowledge and the structure of programs of action are
sometimes hidden both for the individual and the researcher.
So what would be the process of solving problems on the basis of the styles identified
so far? Having simplified the process somewhat, one may present it in the following
way. Let us assume that during a critical point in the problem solving an individual
tries to start action aiming, for example, at generating an idea that may lead to a
solution; in the accepted, simplified model this would be the phase of the generation
of solutions. In the available repertoire of actions at that moment (the space of heuristic
rules) one chooses those actions that could be described by the following lower order
rules: (a) do not curb your imagination, (b) do not restrict the direction of the search
prematurely, (c) do not interrupt the process of searching for an idea too early, and
(d) if ordinary methods of producing an idea have failed, use methods that appear to
have no chance of success.
In the case of finding an idea for a particular solution, the process of solving is
directed towards the phase of verification of solutions. But when the chosen rules have
not brought the expected results, i.e., when an individual has not found the idea of
solution, as a result of applying them, then according to the “goal-switching mechanism”
[41], he looks for rules of a higher order level. These rules may, in turn, generate specific
250
A. STRZALECKI
rules of solving a given problem. Such a rule of higher order level with respect to the
above-mentioned lower order rules is the metarule that defines the whole class of actions
defined as the Transgression (see Table 1).
According to this realized and accepted metarule, an individual should perform
actions (choose rules) that indicate a readiness and ability to transgress the structures
of a given problem and thus are manifestation of flexibility, unconventionality, and
cognitive courage. An example of such a rule generated by the metarule of Transgression
follows: if you cannot solve a problem, restructure it.
Therefore, respective lower order rules may be interpreted as rules regulating
behavior in narrow, specific situations, while identified styles, higher order rules, may
be seen as general principles that regulate behavior with respect to a large range of
phenomena. An important aspect of generating higher order rules is their discovery
and then their acceptance (their “learning” in Scandura’s meaning). In this sense the
internalization of the identified styles of solving problems may become a permanent
source of programs of action.
In this context one may ask about the sources of hypotheses formation in the search
for the solution of a problem. There are many arguments that corroborate Clement’s
statement that there is “the possibility of both empirical and nonempirical sources of
hypotheses and multiple passes through a cycle of generation, evaluation, and modification (or rejection). In this cycle, hypothesis evaluation can also originate from empirical
and nonempirical sources. In such a system, powerful scientific insights can occur when
a new model is developed that leads to a ‘flood’ of new ideas” ([43], p. 378). It is
probable that this model may just lead to the generation of more than higher order
rules, for example, of the Transgression type. The degree of difficulty of the problemsolving process in real-life situation, when an individual is searching for various types
of analogies—to use Clement’s ([43], p. 359) formulation for “explanatory model for
the subject, not just an expedient analogy for generating the answer to the problem,”
is shown by the relatively slow pace of research on this topic.
Another aspect of the research presented here deals with the psychological background of the use of rules in problem solving.
PSYCHOLOGICAL BACKGROUND OF THE CHOICE OF HEURISTIC RULES
This part of the research also aimed at the empirical verification of the model and
consisted in this case in pointing out that the choice of a given, empirically elicited style
of solving problems (Table 1) is a function of the space of psychological traits described
above. The problem posed [9] has many noble antecedents. An answer to the question:
“Which psychological traits influence the conduct of a creator, and hence one’s own
philosophy,” would be, at least in part, a fulfillment of Immanuel Kant’s philosophical
project. It would thus show to what measure a person’s view of the world depends on
one’s own biological background [13, 21, 44–46].
Empirical validation of the model consisted in this case, therefore, of describing
how psychological traits described by the structural dimension of the model influence
the way people solve problems, i.e., how they make choices between rules and higher
order rules (styles), which constitute the processual dimension of the model (Figure 2).
The hypotheses were tested in three phases of problem solving: Analysis of the
Problem (AP), Generation of Solutions (GS), and Verification of Solutions (VS). Seventeen identified styles of solving problems were adopted as dependent and 10 psychological traits as independent variables in these three phases, respectively. Because of the
multidimensional and dynamic character of the relationships between the two classes
Fig. 2. Model of the process of solving problems. Cooperation of the structural system A (Cognitive System,
Axiological System, and Personality System) and processual system B (Styles of Solving Problems).
CREATIVITY IN DESIGN
251
252
A. STRZALECKI
TABLE 2
Relationships of the Creativity Traits With the Styles of Solving Problems
Coefficients of canonical Variables–Set I
Canonical Factors
Creativity traits—Set I
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Strength of ego
Tolerance of cognitive inconsistencies
Spontaneity
Flexibility of cognitive process
Aesthetic attitude
Self-realization
Internal locus of evaluation
Autonomous cognitive motivation
Originality
Nonconformism
I
II
III
IV
0.46
⫺0.18
⫺0.24
0.23
⫺0.28
⫺0.15
⫺0.33
0.20
0.29
0.55
⫺0.32
0.16
⫺0.09
⫺0.65
⫺0.10
0.00
⫺0.48
0.09
0.19
⫺0.40
⫺0.65
⫺0.27
⫺0.33
0.19
⫺0.11
0.13
0.22
0.30
⫺0.23
0.36
0.04
0.65
0.02
0.00
⫺0.17
⫺0.10
⫺0.25
0.13
⫺0.64
0.21
Coefficients of canonical Variables—Set II
Canonical Factors
Styles of solving Problems—Set II
1. Active approach to problem
2. Transgression
3. Responsibility
4. Openness
5. Objectivism
6. Analogy seeking
7. Intuitive thinking
8. Systems approach
9. Flexibility
10. Reductive thinking
11. Modular thinking
12. Conservatism
Canonical correlations Rc
Level of significance p
I
II
III
IV
0.05
0.47
0.00
0.27
0.17
0.58
0.09
⫺0.27
0.08
0.47
0.00
⫺0.37
0.79
0.01
⫺0.39
⫺0.06
⫺0.22
⫺0.53
0.30
⫺0.04
0.50
⫺0.02
0.06
⫺0.06
⫺0.30
⫺0.11
0.65
0.01
⫺0.13
⫺0.13
0.82
⫺0.08
0.06
⫺0.13
0.06
0.28
0.28
⫺0.02
⫺0.19
⫺0.17
0.58
0.01
⫺0.27
⫺0.46
0.18
⫺0.01
⫺0.17
⫺0.21
⫺0.25
⫺0.30
0.27
0.45
⫺0.31
0.36
0.49
0.01
of variables, a multivariate analysis of data was used. The results obtained with the aid
of canonical analysis in the phase of Generation of Solutions, considered by the majority of authors as the most important and, at the same time, the most mysterious phase
of problem solving, follows. (For results obtained by other methods see: [16].)
The factor scores of 12 styles of solving problems from a group of 97 creative
designers, identified in the phase of Generation of solutions (GS), were adopted as the
canonical variables of the second set, while the factor scores of 10 psychological traits
formed the first set. The canonical analysis, carried out for those two sets of variables,
revealed four canonical factors with the following significant (Table 2) canonical correlations—Factor I: Rc ⫽ 0.79; Factor II: Rc ⫽ 0.65; Factor III: Rc ⫽ 0.58; Factor IV: Rc ⫽ 0.49.
From among many linkages between styles of solving problems and traits that
denote the space of psychological variables of the model of Creativity as a Style, attention
will be focused here on two traditionally opposed styles, namely Transgression and
Conservatism (Table 2). These are important due to the role they play in solving all
kinds of scientific problems: Transgression in leading forward and breaking barriers,
and Conservatism as responsible for economic attitude, parsimony, and reliability.
The Transgressive style of solving problems (identified in all three phases of problem
solving—see Table 1) has gained even more flexibility and unconventionality in the
CREATIVITY IN DESIGN
253
phase of the Generation of Solution, which is shown by an excess of imagination and
intuition. Thus, Transgression is seen here as a willingness to break away from the
structure of a given problem, to detach oneself from limitations the problem imposes,
and to transcend familiar methods of solving problems. It represents an ability to use
flexible and unconventional approaches typical for creative thinking.
Transgression, understood in this way (I canonical factor—Table 2), is linked with
the following traits, which were given the canonical coefficient: 10. Nonconformism
(0.55), Strength of Ego (0.46), Internal Locus of Evaluation (⫺0.33), Originality (0.29),
Flexibility of Cognitive Processes (0.23), Autonomous Cognitive Motivation (0.20). In
the independent multiple regression analyses, carried out on the additional variables
([16], p. 147), the Transgression is also linked to Guilford’s Adaptive Flexibility of
Thinking (DFT), measured by The Match Problems II, as “the ability to redefine or
reinterpret figural properties, e.g., of lines, in a number of ways, so as to permit new
approaches to a problem” ([19], p. 238).
Other differences in the psychological conditioning of solving problems may be
seen when the style of Conservatism is taken into consideration. In the phase of the
Generation of solutions, this style loses its rigidity from the previous phase, i.e., the
phase of the Analysis of the Problem. It is nevertheless still an expression of the tendency
to choose easier, more familiar, and more balanced approaches to problems and which
has an overtone of self-control. The Style of Conservatism, which received negative
loading in the first canonical factor, is negatively linked with the following psychological
traits: 10. Nonconformism (0.55), 1. Strengh of Ego (0.46), 9. Originality (0.29), and
positively with 7. Internal Locus of Evaluation (⫺0.33), 5. Aesthetic Atitude (⫺0.28),
3. Spontaneity (⫺0.24) and 1. Tolerance of Cognitive Inconsistencies (⫺0.18). Thus,
the results obtained confirm the long tradition of research in which such dimensions, like
conservatism, authoritarism, and dogmatism have strong roots in personality [16, 47–50].
Such a configuration of psychological variables shows that the Style of Conservatism
and the Style of Transgression depend on an individual’s personality, cognitive, and
axiological systems, and thus it corroborates an argument for the postulated systems
approach to creativity.
A Postscript
The research described above leaves many specific problems untouched. Among
them is the whole domain of the criteria of creativity so pertinent to the criterion
committees of the first Utah conferences on creativity [27]. Theoretical, as well as
practical problems in the construction of criteria, are reemerging at present in the
context of the scientists’conceptions of quality in basic and applied sciences (e.g., [51]).
They show that relevant criteria of creativity cannot be solved in ad hoc procedures,
and need philosophical, historical, and sociological grounding [52, 53].
Another problem concerns the structural versus procedural context of scientific
discovery and design creativity. This distinction often made in psychology of creativity
has gained new insight here. It seems that the elicited styles of solving problems are
also indications of deep personality and cognitive traits. If this is the case, it is valid to
construct of a unified theory of creativity in which a person (and society), a process, a
product, form a system. In this sense the research presented here may also be seen as
an effort to overcome the antinomy between philosophy and psychology concerning
scientific discovery. Their approaches are not merely complementary, but the psychology
of creativity even makes it possible to understand the ways (styles) in which scientists
and designers arrive at given solutions. It, therefore, seems promising to study creative
254
A. STRZALECKI
products, and the process from which these products arise, as emanations and realizations
of the discovered styles [54].
The model presented is open for further validation. It needs, first of all, more
detailed analyses concerning differences between styles of solving real life problems by
low and highly creative designers. So more research is needed of the descriptive type
to study the processual system of the model (Figure 2).
The new data emerged, however, from the research on the structural system of
the model, i.e., of the space of psychological factors that are associated with the creative
entrepreneurship.
STUDY II—THE CREATIVE ENTREPRENEURSHIP
The model of Creativity as a Style has also been used to study the creativity in the
field of entrepreneurship. It was posited that the mental process that underlie the
category of “scientific judgment” is not specific but is, as Wartofsky ([35], p. 2) has
mentioned, analogous to other categories of judgment, for example, to “technological
judgment in engineering.” Therefore, a process of achieving a success in practical
(applied) science, like business, may lead to technological and social change of a
large scale.
Despite much research on entrepreneurship there are debates, reaching back to
John Stuart Mill, on how to understand entrepreneurship itself. The psychological
research concentrates on what is sometimes called innovative entrepreneurship [61],
i.e., an entrepreneurship that involves other psychological dimensions that have been
so far traditionally associated with a need for achievement [55, 56]. These are creativity traits.
Theoretical Model and its Validation
The simplified version of the model of Creativity as a Style has been taken this
time as a frame of reference. It was revealed in factor analysis of the 1,400 scores of
The Creative Behavior Questionnaire (CBQ. Version A—94 items) used in the research
on a scientific motivation [28].
The emerged factor structure appeared more economic. Instead of 10 factors (see:
Study I—Creativity in Engineering Sciences), five factors were isolated. Four of these
factors are represented in previous factor structure: “Strength of Ego,” “Flexibility of
Cognitive Process,” “Self-Realization,” and “Internal Locus of Evaluation.” However,
they have absorbed variances of remaining five factors. The new factor, “Flexibility of
Cognitive Process,” has absorbed the variance of the old factor 2—“Tolerance of Cognitive Inconsistencies,” factor 5—“Aesthetic Attitude,” and factor 9—“Originality.” The
new factor “Internal Locus of Evaluation” has absorbed variance of the old factor 8
“Autonomous Cognitive Motivation.” The old factor 3—“Spontaneity,” emerged as a
new factor “Life Approval.”
The interpretation of new factors is as follows:
1. Life Approval—spontaneity leading to active life styles; self-acceptance; the
ability to be content despite various obstacles; an ability to make decision independently, and to follow an internal system of values; independence from external
reinforcement. This dimension of personality represents the ability to run an
individual life in such a way that it acquires a sense of coherence and efficacy.
2. Strength of Ego—clear identification with and approval of one’s own ego. An
ability to concentrate on problems, and willingness to solve them despite internal
and external difficulties. An ability to overcome various obstacles without the
CREATIVITY IN DESIGN
255
TABLE 3
Differences Between the Group of Creative Entrepreneurs (n ⫽ 60) and the Group of Civil Servants
(60) in The Creative Behavior Questionnaire (df ⫽ 118)
Factors
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Life approval
Strength of ego
Self-realization
Flexibility of cognitive system
Internal locus of evaluation
Group I
Mean
Group II
Mean
Group I
st. deviation
Group II
st. deviation
T
P
21.9
35.5
34.4
44.6
39.1
18.6
26.9
27.9
37.8
28.5
2.9
9.5
5.4
9.2
5.2
5.3
9.6
7.1
9.2
8.6
4.18
4.88
5.59
4.08
8.20
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
support of others, and to maintain already adopted direction in acting. This is
a holistic way of seeing one’s own tasks that result from a coherent value system.
3. Self-realization—willingness to set long term and ambitious tasks, and the ability
to achieve them; pleasure in solving challenging problems. An ability to subordinate partial aims to the principal ones, and to set life goals; a capacity to transform
chaos into order; an ability to refrain from momentary gratification in favor of
satisfaction from the realization of remote tasks.
4. Flexibility of Cognitive System—flexibility in dealing with problems and using
various strategies to solve them. An ability to link concepts from remote domains;
an ability to analyze and form syntheses, and to use various analogies; an ability
to undertake new and difficult problems, and to find new and relevant solutions.
5. Internal Locus of Evaluation—willingness to withstand group pressures; an ability to adopt a genuine and coherent system of values; to be able to carry out
one’s own points of view, even if the majority is against it; an ability to start
each task from the beginning.
This new simplified version of a model has been useful in the following research
on creative entrepreneurship:
In the first study [57], a group of 120 subjects has been tested: 60 successful
entrepreneurs (group I) and 60 civil servants (group II). The following techniques
have been used: the Creative Behavior Questionnaire ((CBQ. Version B—120 items),
Spielberger’s questionnaire of anxiety (STAI), Gliszczynska’s questionnaire of the Locus
of Control, Herman’s questionnaire of Achievement Motivation, and Guilford’s Ship
Destination Test, a measure of the General Reasoning.
It was found that, except for Spielberger’s questionnaire, all measures differentiated
both groups of subjects. In Table 3, differences between The CBQ scores of both groups
are given.
All hypotheses concerning the personality dimensions of the simplified version of
the model of the Creativity as a Style have been positively verified: the creative entrepreTABLE 4
Biserial Correlations of The CBQ Factors With the Success in Business (n ⫽ 120)
Factors
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Life approval
Strength of ego
Self-realization
Flexibility of cognitive system
Internal locus of evaluation
rbis
Standard errors
0.45
0.51
0.57
0.44
0.75
0.090
0.090
0.085
0.097
0.063
256
A. STRZALECKI
TABLE 5
Differences Between the Group of Creative Entrepreneurs (Group I)
and Unemployed People (Group II) in Dmowska’s (1995) Study
Factors
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Life approval
Strength of ego
Self-realization
Flexibility of cognitive system
Internal locus of evaluation
Group I
Group II
F
p
6.83
19.40
8.17
23.17
13.30
6.43
12.03
5.20
21.13
9.63
0.93
50.76
39.27
0.95
30.20
n.s.
0.000
0.000
n.s.
0.000
neurs differ substantially from subjects of the control group. Psychological role of the
factors can be fully seen by inspecting their correlations with the success in business
(Table 4).
In the second study [58], the group of 30 creative entrepreneurs (group I) and the
group o 30 unemployed people (group II) have been tested with the aid of The CBQ
(Version A—94 items).
Special effort was made to select the creative entrepreneurs carefully. This was
done in several steps. To begin with, a list of entrepreneurs was established with the
aid of the directory of Polish firms Kompass. Then a group of entrepreneurs, founders,
and owners of firms, was chosen from the initial pool of subjects, and finally 60 owners
of successful firms from the north of Poland were chosen. As a result, two groups, each
comprising 30 successful entrepreneurs, were selected, and as control groups—two
groups of unemployed people.
It was posited that creative entrepreneurs will receive better results then unemployed people in all five factors that were taken to be an operational definition of the
model of Creativity as a Style. The main hypotheses were partly confirmed: only three
factors—Strengh of Ego, Self-Realization, and Internal Locus of Evaluation (Table
5)—significantly differentiated both groups from one another. Multiple correlation of
all variables with the criterion (R ⫽ 0.93) explains 86% of variance.
In the third study [59], where the same criterion of the groups selection was used,
the CBQ (Version A) was administered to both groups. Analysis of variance (Table
6) clearly shows that the group of creative entrepreneurs (Group I, n ⫽ 30) differs
significantly from the group of unemployed people (Group II, n ⫽ 30).
The impact of the five factors in explaining psychological mechanisms of the creative
entrepreneurs is shown in Table 7.
In the last research [60], usefulness of the model of the Creativity as a Style has
been verified to study the psychological mechanisms of success in business college. The
group of 73 students has been tested with the aid of the battery of tests including the
TABLE 6
Differences Between the Group of Creative Entrepreneurs (Group I)
and Unemployed People (Group II)
Factors
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Life approval
Strength of ego
Self-realization
Flexibility of cognitive system
Internal locus of evaluation
Blotniak’s (1996) study.
Group I
Group II
F
p
6.8
19.8
8.9
24.2
12.8
5.9
11.0
5.5
21.2
10.0
8.78
62.27
58.82
11.59
30.90
0.004
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.000
CREATIVITY IN DESIGN
257
TABLE 7
The Correlations of Psychological Factors With the Creative Entrepreneurship (N ⫽ 60)
Factors
1. Life approval
2. Strength of ego
3. Self-realization
4. Flexibility of cognitive system
5. Internal locus of evaluation
Multiple R
r
% of variance
0.357
0.776
0.748
0.406
0.639
0.966
60.3
12.7
55.9
16.5
40.8
93.3
CBQ (Version B—120 items). In Table 8, the correlations of the five factors of the
CBQ with the success in the first and second year of studies are shown.
Although the single correlations are not very high, the beta weights in the regression
equation calculated for the first year of studies are following: YI⫽ 0.38X3 ⫹ 0.29X2 ⫺
0.24X5 ⫺ 0.23X1. The multiple correlation R ⫽ 0.47 (p ⬍ 0.001). The regression equation
for the II year of studies is as follows: YII ⫽ 0.41X2 ⫹ 0.25X3 ⫺ 0.12X1 ⫺ 0.10X4. Multiple
R ⫽ 0.42 (p ⬍ 0.001).
Differences between the CBQ scores of students of business college and creative
entrepreneurs show how important are psychological traits in given frame of reference.
Comments
When analyzing investigations on the psychological factors of success in entrepreneurship, we see that the model of Creativity as a Style proved to be useful. This is
shown by high correlations between variables that denote the model with external criteria
of success, and also by statistically significant differences between the criterion groups.
However, there are some exceptions. In Dmowska’s [58] research (Table 5), two
dimensions of the model showed no positive effects in entrepreneurship, namely Life
Approval, and Flexibility of Cognitive System. It is very surprising indeed when compared with other groups under study. This may be due to random fluctuation of results
caused by a group selection. The tentative explanation may also be that when personality
system is highly effective (Strength of Ego, Self-realization, and Internal Locus of
Evaluation) other dimensions of the model, especially Flexibility of Cognitive System
may not play a leading role. It is worth to note that this dimension characterizes a
creative and divergent aspect of thinking that may be not salient in individuals under
study. A marked tendency to spontaneous style of acting (Life Approval) may also be
an inhibitor of creative entrepreneurship.
This interpretation may also be valid for Strzalecki and Wegorzewski’s [60] research
on the success in business college (Table 8). Because of the convergent character of
TABLE 8
Correlations of Five Factors of the Creativity Behavior Questionnaire With the Success
in Business College (N ⫽ 73)
I Year
Factors
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Life approval
Strength of ego
Self-realization
Flexibility of cognitive system
Internal locus of evaluation
II Year
r
p
r
P
⫺0.108
0.253
0.341
0.217
0.037
n.s.
0.01
0.003
n.s.
n.s.
⫺0.011
0.338
0.276
0.174
0.125
n.s.
0.004
0.02
n.s.
n.s.
258
A. STRZALECKI
the 5 years of studies in the college the most important for students is to cope with a
certain level of anxiety and tension induced by the daily routine. The Strength of Ego and
determination in achieving goals (Self-Realization) is important. Such a configuration of
traits was also observed in other types of studies on students groups [28].
Of course, the model is open for further validation in the area of applied sciences,
and other domains of human activity and needs serious research. The relations of its
dimensions (factors isolated from The CBQ scores) with various psychological traits
coming from other models, like Cattell’s, Hermans’, Guilford’s, not shown, however,
in this paper, are additional positive argument.
It is also worth mentioning that some dimensions of the model of Creativity as a
Style may be linked to Warneryd’s model of entrepreneurship ([61], p. 442). One could
link his “quest for novelty” with Life Approval, and the Flexibility of Cognitive System,
and his “positive excitement” with Self-realization, not to mention “the purposefulness
of behavior” with Strengh of Ego, and Internal Locus of Evaluation.
The multidimensional approach to creative entrepreneurship presented above provides a far more detailed analysis of how entrepreneurs really think than old investigations traditionally associated only with the need for achievement as an explanatory
category (see Warneryd’s [61] and Davidson’s [55] critics of nach research). It also
encourages one to undertake more comprehensive and sophisticated research on the
topic.
Final Remarks
The results presented indicate the general applicability of the multidimensional
approach to creativity in design. Although creativity in entrepreneurship may be partly
thought of as a distinct area, the intellectual processes underlying success in this field
and responsible for an account of heuristic rules in successful problem solving involved
in positive social change, may be similar, as Wartofsky [35] has already noticed.
The suggested model of Creativity as a Style makes it possible to understand the
influence of the structural on the processual dimension of creativity better (Figure 2).
It also shows the links between the personality, cognitive, and axiological domains
clearly. The model demonstrates how creativity is sensitive to social context. Through
links between the axiological system and environment it shows the possibility of a
refinement or rejection of values. It indicates that like in many other domains of human
functioning, it is impossible to think about creativity and to study it without taking into
consideration individual and social value systems and morality.
Further research is necessary, of course, to clearly show the usefulness of an elicited
set of styles of solving problems. This could be achieved through the research on
strategies of solving various types of problems, ranging from well-structured to illstructured problems, by designers of varying level of creativity.
References
1. Andreewsky, E.: Systems Science, Psychology, and Cognition, in Manual de Systemique. M. de Cleris, ed.,
European Systems Union. Hellenic Systems Society, Athens, 1991.
2. Cikszentmihalyi, M.: Society, Culture, and Person. A Systems View of Creativity, in The Nature of Creativity.
Contemporary Psychological Perspectives. R. J. Sternberg, ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1989.
3. Gardner, H.: Creative Lives and Creative Works: A Synthetic Scientific Approach, in The Nature of Creativity. Contemporary Psychological Perspectives. R. J. Sternberg, ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1989.
4. Kozielecki, J.: Multidimensional man. Zak, Warszawa, 1996 (in Polish).
CREATIVITY IN DESIGN
259
5. Nosal, C. S.: Variety of Creative Minds: A Holistic Approach, in Creative Processing of Information: A
Cognitive Approach. C. S. Nosal, ed., Delta, Wroclaw, 1992 (in Polish).
6. Sternberg, R. J.: A Three-Facet Modelof Creativity, in The Nature of Craetivity. Contemporary Psychological
Perspectives. R. J. Sterneberg, ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1989.
7. Strzalecki, A.: Psychological Research in Design, Design Methods and Theories 24(3), 1238–1266 (1990).
8. Mellou, E.: The Two-Conditions View of Creativity, Journal of Creative Behavior 2, 127–142 (1996).
9. Strzalecki, A.: Styles of Solving Design Problems. A Note from Research into Design Creativity, Design
Methods and Theories 4, 127–136 (1981).
10. Strzalecki, A.: Rules and Styles of Problem Solving: Methodological, Epistemological, and Practical Context,
in Practical Philosophy and Action Theory: Praxiology. The International Annual of Practical Philosophy and
Mwthodology, Vol. 2. T. Airaksinen, and W. Gasparski, eds., Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, 1993.
11. Strzalecki, A.: Styles of Creative Problem Solving, in Psychological Mechanisms of Human Creativity: The
Temptation for Reassessment. T. Marek, ed., Eburon, Delft, 1993.
12. Strzalecki, A.: Style of Creative Behavior. General Model and Its Application, Paper Presented at the
Seventh Meeting of the International Society for the Study of Individual Differences. Warsaw, July 1995.
13. Royce, J. R.: The Conceptual Framework for a Multi-Factor Theory of Individuality, in Multivariate
Analysis and Psychological Theory. J. R. Royce, ed., Academic Press, London, 1973.
14. Messick, S.: Multivariate Models of Cognition and Personality: The Need for Both Process and Structure
in Psychological Theory and Measurement, in Multivariate Analysis and Psychological Theory. J. R. Royce,
ed., Academic Press, London, 1973.
15. Vernon, P. E.: Multivariate Approach to the Study of Cognitive Style, in Multivariate Analysis and Psychological Theory. J. R. Royce, ed., Academic Press, London, 1973.
16. Strzalecki, A.: Creativity and the Styles of Solving Practical Problems, Ossolineum, Wroclaw, 1989 (in Polish).
17. Strzalecki, A.: Selected Problems of the Psychology of Creativity, PWN, Warszawa, 1969 (in Polish).
18. Torrance, E. P.: The Nature of Creativity as Manifested in its Testing, in The Nature of Creativity.
Contemporary Psychological Perspectives. R. J. Sternberg, ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
1989.
19. Guilford, J. P.: The Structure of Intelligence, in Handbook of Measurement and Assessment in Behavioral
Sciences. D. K. Whitla, ed., Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1968.
20. Maruszewski, T.: One or More Creativity Models: Information Coding, Cognitive Preferences and Solving
Problems of Creativity, in Psychological Mechanisms of Human Creativity: The temptation for Reassessment.
T. Marek, ed., Eburon, Delft, 1993.
21. Nosal, C .S., and Piskorz, Z.: Survey of Fundamental Problems Concerning Creative Information Processing,
Science of Science 1, 233–258 (1989).
22. Tardiff, T. Z., and Sternberg, R. J.: What Do We Know About Creativity? in The Nature of Creativity.
Contemporary Psychological Perspectives. R. J. Sternberg, ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
1989.
23. Bandura, A.: Self-Efficacy. Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change, Psychological Review 84,
191–215 (1977).
24. Zaleski, Z.: Attribution and Emotions Related to the Future Goals Attainments, Journal of Educational
Psychology 80, 563–568 (1988).
25. Kohlberg, L.: Essays on Moral Development. Vol. I. The Philosophy of Moral Development. Harper and
Row, San Francisco, 1981.
26. Kohlberg, L.: Essays on Moral Development. Vol. II. The Psychology of Moral Development. Harper and
Row, San Francisco, 1983.
27. Strzalecki, A., and Targowska, M.: Semantic Structure of the Concept of Creative Invention, Design
Methods and Theories, 2, 112–117 (1976).
28. Strzalecki, A.: Motivation for Choosing a Scientific Career, Polish Psychological Bulletin 29(3), 255–269
(1998).
29. Luchins, A. S.: Mechanization in Problem Solving. The Effect of Einstellung, Psychological Monographs
54, 248 (1942).
30. Ray, W. S.: The Experimental Psychology of Original Thinking. Macmillan, New York, 1967.
31. Anderson, A. H.: A Cognitive Theory of Judgment and Decision, in New Directions in Research on Decision
Making. B. Brehmer, H. Jurgenman, P. Lourens, and G. Sevon, eds., North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1986.
32. Kozielecki, J.: Psychological Decision Theory. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1981.
33. Tyszka, T.: Decision Analysis and the Psychology of Decision. PWN, Warszawa, 1986 (in Polish).
34. Nickels, T., ed.., Scientific Discovery. Case Studies. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1980.
35. Wartofsky, M. W.: Scientific Judgment: Creativity and Discovery in Scientific Thought, in Scientific Discovery. Case Studies. T. Nickels, ed., Reidel, Dordrecht, 1980.
260
A. STRZALECKI
36. Kaplan, C. A., and Simon, H. A.: In Search of Insight, Cognitive Psychology 22, 374–419 (1990).
37. Tweney, R. D.: Fields of Enterprise: On Michael Faraday’s Thought, in Creative People at Work: Twelve
Cognitive Case Studies. D. B. Wallace, and H. E. Gruber, eds., Oxford University Press, New York, 1989.
38. Tweney, R. D.: Serial and Paralel Processing in Scientific Discovery, in Cognitive Models of Science.
Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Vol. XV. R. N. Giere, ed., University of Minnesota Press,
Minneapolis, MN, 1992.
39. Schank, R. C.: Creativity as a Mechanical Process, in The Nature of Creativity. Contemporary Psychological
Perspective. R. J. Sternberg, ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1989.
40. Shrager , J., and Langley, P.: Computational Models of Scientific Discovery. Morgan Kaufman, San Mateos,
CA, 1990.
41. Scandura, J. M.: Problem solving. A Structural/Process Approach with Instructional Implications. Academic
Press, New York, 1977.
42. Pask, G.: Commentary on J. M. Scandura: Problem Solving, Journal of Structural Learning 4, 335–346 (1980).
43. Clement, J.: Learning via Model Constuction and Creiticism. Protocol Evidence on Sources of Creativity
in Science, in Handbook of Creativity. A. Glover, R. R. Ronning, and C. R. Reynolds, eds., Plenum Press,
New York, 1989.
44. Strelau, J.: The Regulative Theory of Temperament: Current Status. Presidential Address Presented at the
7th Meeting of the International Society for the Study of Individual Differences. Warsaw (15–19 July 1995).
45. Oniszczenko, W.: The Genetic Foundations of Temperament. Oficyna Wydawnicza Wydzialu Psychologii
UW, Warszawa, 1997 (in Polish).
46. Madsen, K. B.: Modern Theories of Motivation. Munskgaard, Copenhagen, 1974.
47. Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswick, and Levison, D. J.: The Authoritarian Personality. Harper and Row,
New York, 1950.
48. Barron, F.: Some Personality Correlates of Independence of Judgment, Journal of Personality 21, 730–
742 (1953).
49. Eysenck, H. J.: Psychology of Politics. Methuen, London, 1954.
50. Rokeach, M.: The Open and Closed Mind. Basic Books, New York, 1960.
51. Hemlin, S., and Montgomery H.: Scientists’ Conceptions of Scientific Quality: An Interview Study, Science
Studies 1, 73–81 (1990).
52. Brzezinski, J., Coniglione, F., Marek, T., eds.: Science Between Algorithm and Creativity. Eburon, Delft, 1992.
53. Brzezinski, J., Di Nuovo, S., Marek, T., and Maruszewski, T., eds.: Creativity and Consciousness. Philosophical and Psychological Dimensions. Eburon, Delft, 1993.
54. Strzalecki, A.: Philosophy and/or Psychology of Discovery, in Design and Systems. Praxiology. The International Annual of Practical Philosophy and Methodology, Vol. 3. A. Collen and W. Gasparski, eds., Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, 1995.
55. Davidson, P.: Need for Achievement and Entrepreneurial Activity in Small Firms, in Understanding
Economic Behavior. K. G. Grunert, and F. Olander, eds., Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1989.
56. McClelland, D. C.: Nachievement and Entrepreneurship: A Longitudinal Study, Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology 1, 389–392 (1965).
57. Strzalecki, A. and Kot, D.: Personality Correlates of Success in Creative Entrepreurship. Chair of General
Psychology. University of Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski , 1999 (unpublished paper, in Polish).
58. Dmowska, J.: Personality Description of Creative Entrepreneur. Department of Psychology Nicolas Copernicus University, 1995, Unpublished Master Thesis (in Polish).
59. Blotniak, A.: Personality Determinants of Creative Entrepreneurship, in Studia z Psychologii. A. Grochowska et al., eds., Wydawnictwo ATK, Warszawa, 1996 (in Polish).
60. Strzalecki, A., and Wegorzewski, M.: Psychological Factors of Success in Business College. Chair of General
Psychology, University of Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski, 1999 (unpublished paper, in Polish).
61. Warneryd, K. E.: The Psychology of Innovative Entrepreneurship, in Handbook of Economic Psychology.
W. F. Van Raaij, G. M. Van Veldhoven, and K. E. Warneryd, eds., Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1988.
Received 25 February 1999; revised 29 October 1999; accepted 7 January 2000