Behavior analytic studies of creativity: A critical review.

Ball et al. (1985) read every behavior-analytic creativity paper they could find. They located 20 studies that tried to make people more creative with rewards or prompts.

The team looked at how each study defined creativity, how they measured it, and whether the gains lasted or mattered outside the lab.

All 20 papers claimed success, but the authors spotted big holes. Most studies mixed instructions with rewards, so no one knew which part helped.

Few checked if the new creative moves showed up with new tasks, new places, or new people. Social validity was missing: no one asked if the 'creative' behavior was useful or liked.

Glover et al. (1976) is one of the 20 papers S et al. ripped apart. It used team points and brief practice to boost fourth-graders' creative writing. The class did get better, but S et al. note the study told kids exactly what to do before the points ever arrived.

Pring et al. (2012) looked at autistic savant artists and found they were only extra-creative on narrow drawing tasks. S et al. would nod: without wide measures, you can't claim real creativity.

Stamoulis et al. (2015) showed that adults with more autistic traits give fewer but weirder ideas. S et al. warn that counting only 'unusual' answers can trick you into calling any odd response creative.

Before you run a 'creativity program,' strip out the extra instructions and test if the new behavior survives when rewards stop. Measure if teachers, parents, or bosses actually care about the 'creative' moves you trained. Pick tasks that matter to the client, not just easy lab games.