Although creativity is often seen as an aspect of self-fulfillment, it is important to recognize its social effects. The traditional view is that these should be beneficial, creativity thus being benevolent. However, those who wish to do deliberate harm to others can also display creativity, in this case malevolent creativity. This is governed by the same principles as benevolent creativity, differing only in its intended purpose. Like any creativity, malevolent creativity can be examined through its products. Concepts from research on creative products provide important insights into the activities of terrorists and criminals, especially the idea of competing solutions. The key ideas in malevolent creativity are summarized in 11 principles; recognizing these helps in developing more effective means for counteracting terrorism.

Why is creativity important to engineering and engineering education? The value that creativity and innovation offers lies in their ability to facilitate the development of novel and effective technological solutions to problems stimulated by change. There is, however, a disconnect between creativity, innovation, and engineering. Educational programs focus excessively on narrow and deep technical specifications, with little or no room in the curriculum for developing the ability to think and act creatively. Unless this disconnect is addressed through holistic changes to engineering education, we risk producing engineers who are ill-equipped to tackle the problems sparked by increasingly rapid change in society. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2017 APA, all rights reserved)

What is the role of expertise in evaluating creative products? Novices and experts do not assess creativity similarly, indicating domain-specific knowledge’s role in judging creativity. We describe two studies that examined how “quasi-experts” (people who have more experience in a domain than novices but also lack recognized standing as experts) compared with novices and experts in rating creative work. In Study 1, we compared different types of quasi-experts with novices and experts in rating short stories. In Study 2, we compared experts, quasi-experts, and novices in evaluating an engineering product (a mousetrap design). Quasi-experts (regardless of type) seemed to be appropriate raters for short stories, yet results were mixed for the engineer quasi-experts. Some domains may require more expertise than others to properly evaluate creative work. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2017 APA, all rights reserved)

Identifying the extent and nature of the creativity of new products is a key for innovation management. The revised Creative Solution Diagnosis Scale (CSDS) is a 27-item scale based on a theoretical model of functional creativity, consisting of five main criteria: Relevance & Effectiveness, Problematization, Propulsion, Elegance and Genesis. The CSDS offers potential for differentiated assessments of product creativity as part of the larger process of innovation. Non-expert judges rated a series of mousetrap designs using a 30-item version of the CSDS. Confirmatory factor analysis revealed a simple structure that corresponded closely to the a priori theoretical model of functional creativity. The untrained judges were able to use the scale with a high degree of reliability and internal consistency. The scale offers a tool for managing innovation, especially for stimulating creativity and diagnosing the creativity of products

In the present study, an attempt was made to facilitate for engineering undergraduates to come up with innovative ideas by teaching creativity, not simply in a paper and pencil test situation but also in a practical exercise. A total of 64 male engineering undergraduates received three lectures on creativity at the beginning of a course on engineering innovation. Some of them (N=37) also completed a ''creativity'' test: TCT-DP (Urban & Jellen, 1996) and were individually counselled on the basis of test scores. A separate control group (N=21) took the test together with these students, but otherwise did not participate in any way in the study. Upon retesting 6 weeks later the counselled students were more innovative, whereas the control group were simply less inhibited. In addition, machines constructed by the counselled students were more elegant and creative than those of the 27 students who merely attended the lectures. Thus, the training was associated with changes in behaviour not only on the test, but in a practical activity also.