Psychological Studies

, Volume 55, Issue 4, pp 339–350 | Cite as

Creativity in Context: The Ecology of Creativity Evaluations and Practices in an Artistic Craft

  • Vlad Petre GlăveanuEmail author


The present article reports a study on the use of a multiple feedback methodology for creativity evaluation in the case of Romanian Easter eggs. Four groups of evaluators —i.e. ethnographers, priests, art teachers and folk artists—all members of professional communities relevant for this particular folk art participated in the study. They almost unanimously appreciated ‘traditional’ wax decorated eggs as highly creative for their designs, aesthetics and the hard work and talent they require but opinions diverged when commenting on the creativity of other types of Easter eggs. At a more general level, two broad evaluation patters were found, corresponding to whether respondents participate or not in decoration practices. Identifying these patterns comes to reinforce the idea that creativity evaluations, as well as creative activity, are rooted in the social and cultural contexts of the participants and these contexts share important similarities but also marked differences.


Creativity Evaluation Practice Multiple feedback method Cultural psychology Easter eggs Romania 



This work was supported by the Economic and Social Research Council [grant number ES/H/13199/1]. The author would like to thank Sandra Jovchelovitch, Derek Hook, Caroline Howarth and the journal’s reviewers for their insightful comments and the Romanian Peasant Museum for being very supportive of the present research.


  1. Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Colorado: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  2. Attride-Stirling, J. (2001). Thematic networks: An analytic tool for qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 1(3), 385–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Auerbach, C., & Silverstein, L. (2003). Qualitative data: An introduction to coding and analysis. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Barker, P. (2009). Religious nationalism in modern Europe. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Barnett, J. (1949). The Easter festival—A study in cultural change. American Sociological Review, 14(1), 62–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Becker, H. S. (2008). Art Worlds. Updated and expended. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bodnarescu, L. (1920). Cateva datini de Paşti la români (2nd ed.). Chişinau: Tipografia Societăţii de Editură Naţională Luceafarul.Google Scholar
  8. Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  9. Craft, A. (2005). Creativity in schools: Tensions and dilemmas. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cooper, P., & Allen, N. B. (1999). The quilters: Women and domestic art, an oral history. Lubbock: Texas Tech University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Dewey, J. (1934). Art as experience. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  12. Dey, I. (1993). Qualitative data analysis: A user-friendly guide. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eco, U. (1989). The open work. UK: Hutchinson Radius.Google Scholar
  14. Eisenstadt, S. N. (1973). Tradition, change, and modernity. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  15. Feldman, D. H. (1988). Creativity: Dreams, insights, and transformations. In R. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychological perspectives (pp. 271–297). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Fine, G. A. (2004). Everyday genius: Self-taught art and the culture of authenticity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  17. Galton, F. (1869). Hereditary genius: An inquiry into its laws and consequences. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  18. Gardner, H. (1994). The creators’ patters. In M. Boden (Ed.), Dimensions of creativity (pp. 143–158). London: MIT Press / Badford Books.Google Scholar
  19. Giuffre, K. (2009). Collective creativity: Art and society in the South Pacific. Surrey: Ashgate Publishing.Google Scholar
  20. Glăveanu, V. P. (2010a). Paradigms in the study of creativity: Introducing the perspective of cultural psychology. New Ideas in Psychology, 28(1), 79–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Glăveanu, V. P. (2010b). Principles for a cultural psychology of creativity. Culture & Psychology, 16(2), 147–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gorovei, A. (2001). Ouăle de Paşte. Studiu de folclor, ediţia a doua. Bucureşti: Paideia.Google Scholar
  23. Hennessey, B. (2003). The social psychology of creativity. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 47(3), 253–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hutt, A. (2005). Oul impodobit, un mestesug vechi de mii de ani. Descoperă România, I(1), 25–33.Google Scholar
  25. Ingold, T., & Hallam, E. (2007). Creativity and cultural improvisation: An introduction. In E. Hallam & T. Ingold (Eds.), Creativity and cultural improvisation (pp. 1–24). Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
  26. Irimie, C. (1969). Arta încondeierii ouălor. In F. Bobu Florescu & P. Petrescu (Eds.), Arta populară românească. Bucureşti: Editura Academiei.Google Scholar
  27. John-Steiner, V. (1992). Creative lives, creative tensions. Creativity Research Journal, 5(1), 99–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  29. Lubart, T. (1999). Creativity across cultures. In R. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of Creativity (pp. 339–350). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Maduro, R. (1976). Artistic creativity in a Brahmin painter community. Research Monograph 14. Berkeley: University of California.Google Scholar
  31. Mall, A. S. (2007). Structure, innovation and agency in pattern construction: The Kōlam of Southern India. In E. Hallam & T. Ingold (Eds.), Creativity and cultural improvisation (pp. 55–78). Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
  32. Marian, M. B. (1992). Mitologia oului. Bucureşti: Editura Minerva.Google Scholar
  33. Markus, H. R., & Hamedani, M. (2007). Sociocultural psychology: The dynamic interdependence among self systems and social systems. In S. Kitayama & D. Cohen (Eds.), Handbook of cultural psychology (pp. 3–39). New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  34. Montuori, A., & Purser, R. (1995). Deconstructing the lone genius myth: Toward a contextual view of creativity. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 35(3), 69–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Müller, O. (2008). Religion in Central and Eastern Europe: Was there a re-awakening after the breakdown of communism? In D. Pollack & D. Olson (Eds.), The role of religion in modern societies (pp. 63–92). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. Negus, K., & Pickering, M. (2004). Creativity, communication and cultural value. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  37. Newall, V. (1967). Easter eggs. Journal of American Folklore, 80(315), 3–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Newall, V. (1984). Easter eggs: Symbols of life and renewal. Folklore, 95(1), 21–29.Google Scholar
  39. Tzigara-Samurcaş, A. (1909). Arta în România: Studii critice. Bucureşti: Editura Minerva.Google Scholar
  40. Westwood, R., & Low, D. (2003). The multicultural muse: Culture, creativity and innovation. International Management of Cross-Cultural Management, 3(2), 235–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Yokochi, S., & Okada, T. (2005). Creative cognitive process of art making: A field study of a traditional Chinese ink painter. Creativity Research Journal, 17(2&3), 241–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zahacinschi, M., & Zahacinschi, N. (1992). Ouăle de Paşti la români. Bucureşti: Editura Sport-Turism.Google Scholar
  43. Zittoun, T., Duveen, G., Gillespie, A., Ivinson, G., & Psaltis, C. (2003). The use of symbolic resources in developmental transitions. Culture & Psychology, 9(4), 415–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Academy of Psychology (NAOP) India 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.London School of Economics and Political ScienceInstitute of Social PsychologyLondonUK

Personalised recommendations