The Risky Side of Creativity: Domain Specific Risk Taking in Creative Individuals

Critical Analysis

Behavioral researchers have traditionally studied risk-taking by focusing on isolated attributes that cross domains; for example, they have examined divergent thinking or creative lifestyle, but examine these separately. These studies fall short, and while the authors recognize that measuring creativity has been” an exceptionally challenging task throughout the history of creativity research” (2), they never explain why these individualized attempts have been unsuccessful. One reason may be because of how different aspects of creativity are intertwined and cannot be understood in isolation; another more important reason is that a positivist approach to measuring creativity will always “fall short” as creativity is not something to be measured—it is something to be experienced.

Nevertheless, the researchers feel it is important to examine the relationship between risk-taking and creativity across domains, as some domains are “more closely associated with creativity than others” (2). Surprisingly, they cite Sternberg’s view that there is a distinction between a risk in a creative behavior and in a risk of physical harm, where “the risk of being ‘different’ is more important in creativity than risks that endanger limbs or life” (2). This perspective endorses creative risk as a socially enacted concept, one that is phenomenological and contextual rather than objective and measurable.

Yet while the authors use Sternberg’s conceptualization to rhetorically frame their study, in practice they leverage methodical instrumentation aimed at measuring a single individual’s hypothetical behavior, and their views of themselves, rather than observing any form of social, shared experience related to creative activities. This is evidenced in the battery of tools the authors select for their study: a roulette betting task, a questionnaire asking participants their opinions of hypothetical behavior, a divergent thinking task following Guilford, an associated word task, a second questionnaire, and an adjective selection activity. None of these examine creativity in practice, and none examine creativity in any social context.

The methods call into question the conclusion: that the results “corroborate Sternberg’s idea of ‘sensible’ risk taking in creativity” (6). This is stated firmly. Curiously, the authors reiterate Sternberg’s view that there are domain-specific elements of creativity risk taking related specifically to social appearance and differentness which were clearly not addressed in the research itself. The examples used are sound: “Presenting a radical idea to a social group, unveiling a new artwork at an exhibition, publishing a collection of stories or poems… are risky since there is always some uncertainty associated with the social evaluations” (7). Yet the study itself engaged with no artwork, stories, poems, social groups, or public situations; again, following positivist assumptions, the study engaged in no situational behaviors at all, high-stakes or otherwise and instead relied on lab-style, personal exercises.

In citing Sternberg, and in offering anecdotes related to Michelangelo’s public display of risk-taking by painting the face of the Pope’s master of ceremonies on a wall, the authors clearly recognize the social, enacted, highly-contingent nature of creative risk taking. Painters like Banksy paint political statements on walls, as do graffiti artists, and the reactions are different than the reactions to Michelangelo’s social risks; the stakes are different, the artists are different, and the audiences and social norms are different. But these differences, clearly important, aren’t considered.

The authors do offer a gestural recognition of the limitations of their work, as they explain that “external factors such as societal norms affect how individuals react to their own and others actions involving risk and uncertainty. This could be an important factor manipulating creative output” (7). The token nature of this consideration is offered through their summary—that, with emphasis added, “future studies could investigate” this idea.

This work falls short in two main ways. First, the need to measure the risk quantitatively misses an opportunity to both understand and qualitatively examine the risky behavior as it is actually performed, where the stakes are real; the measurements used in the study have no stakes at all, given that (following ethical research approaches, and with a commitment to laboratory studies), the participants worked privately, were paid compensation entirely unrelated to their engagement, and had no opportunity for a social interaction that might have lasting implications on their reputation or sense of self.

Next, and most importantly, an emphasis on measurement misses the entire context of creative risk as embodied, which must engage with at least a private view of one’s identity, and more importantly, an exploration into the social context in which the risk occurs. An action is not risky if there is no expectation of a negative consequence. This study offers a view of how someone, in a lab setting, feels about a generic view of themselves and the idea of risk; this provides little new insight or knowledge into how creative risk taking occurs and is experienced.