Nudging individuals’ creativity using social labeling

Critical Analysis

In this article, the authors summarize an experimental study focused on labeling theory and creativity. In their experiment, they assigned a “creative” or “not creative” label to participants, and then assessed how many ways a participant could think of dropping an egg from a tall space and have it stay intact. They concluded that those with either label developed more solutions than those without labels; that applying a label of creativity increases creative self-efficacy through self-perceived creativity; and that applying a non-creative label increases the number of solutions to egg dropping, likely through encouraging people to try harder.

The intent of the experiment is to understand how labels relate to creativity. The authors explain that “labels provided by others can also be informative about a person’s traits and values and lead to their re-attribution to the self” (2) and claim that no research has examined social labeling and creativity. They equate creativity to divergent thinking, indicating that ideation is a “demanding activity that requires time and cognitive efforts, while remaining a highly uncertain activity with a risk of failure” (2). Creative confidence is required to persevere through this demanding effort. Creative confidence is described as creative self-efficacy, or “the belief that one has the knowledge and skills to produce creative outcomes” (2).

The study offers three main contributions. First, the results show that when someone is labeled as creative or not creative, they perform better on a divergent thinking activity. Next, a creativity label “enhances successively their self-perceived creativity and their creative self-efficacy” (2). This confirms social labeling theory, as someone labeled creativity has a higher perception of their creativity, and “therefore has a higher confidence in his or her capacities to perform creatively” (10). Additionally, a not creative label “enhances subjects’ involvement in the creative task” (2), which “damages self-perceived creativity” yet still enhances involvement in a creative activity” (11).

The primary conclusion is that labeling theory fosters creativity, irrespective of if someone is labeled creative or non-creative, but for different reasons; “the effectiveness of labeling depends on the way individuals initially perceive themselves in terms of creativity” (12). The authors go as far as to argue that the study “offers a theoretical validation of social labeling theory itself” (12).

The implications of this are presented in the context of managerial activity. Managers should remind their employees that they are creative, yet for those who believe they are creative, managers should label them as not creative.

Snarky note; I can’t believe I’m reading these silly experimental divergent thinking studies again, but this seems at least somewhat applicable to my investigation of labeling theory… Come on, egg dropping techniques? 7th grade science class…