Psychology Wiki

Assessment | Biopsychology | Comparative | Cognitive | Developmental | Language | Individual differences | Personality | Philosophy | Social |
Methods | Statistics | Clinical | Educational | Industrial | Professional items | World psychology |

Personality: Self concept · Personality testing · Theories · Mind-body problem

This article is in need of attention from a psychologist/academic expert on the subject.
Please help recruit one, or improve this page yourself if you are qualified.
This banner appears on articles that are weak and whose contents should be approached with academic caution.
Main article: The psychology of creativity
Main article: The teaching of creativity
Main article: The skills approach to creativity
Main article: Creativity in clinical practice
Main article: The physiological basis of creativity

Creativity is a mental and social process involving the generation of new ideas or concepts, or new associations of the creative mind between existing ideas or concepts. An alternative conception of creativness is that it is simply the act of making something new.

From a scientific point of view, the products of creative thought (sometimes referred to as divergent thought) are usually considered to have both originality and appropriateness.

Although intuitively a simple phenomenon, it is in fact quite complex. It has been studied from the perspectives of behavioural psychology, social psychology, psychometrics, cognitive science, artificial intelligence, philosophy, history, economics, business, and management, among others. The studies have covered everyday creativity, exceptional creativity and even artificial creativity. Unlike many phenomena in science, there is no single, authoritative perspective or definition of creativity. And unlike many phenomena in psychology, there is no standardized measurement technique.

Creativity has been attributed variously to divine intervention, cognitive processes, the social environment, personality traits, and chance ("accident", "serendipity"). It has been associated with genius, mental illness and humour. Some say it is a trait we are born with; others say it can be taught with the application of simple techniques.

Although popularly associated with art and literature, it is also an essential part of innovation and invention and is important in professions such as business, economics, architecture, science and engineering.

Despite, or perhaps because of, the ambiguity and multi-dimensional nature of creativity, entire creative industries have been spawned from the pursuit of creative ideas and the development of creativity techniques.

Leonardo Da Vinci is well known for his creative works.

Creativity has been associated with right or forehead brain activity or even specifically with lateral thinking.

Some students of creativity have emphasized an element of chance in the creative process. Linus Pauling, asked at a public lecture how one creates scientific theories, replied that one must endeavor to come up with many ideas — then discard the useless ones.

Another adequate definition of creativity is that it is an "assumptions-breaking process." Creative ideas are often generated when one discards preconceived assumptions and attempts a new approach or method that might seem to others unthinkable.

Distinguishing between creativity and innovation

It is often useful to explicitly distinguish between creativity and innovation.

Creativity is typically used to refer to the act of producing new ideas, approaches or actions, while innovation is the process of both generating and applying such creative ideas in some specific context.

In the context of an organization, therefore, the term innovation is often used to refer to the entire process by which an organization generates creative new ideas and converts them into novel, useful and viable commercial products, services, and business practices, while the term creativity is reserved to apply specifically to the generation of novel ideas by individuals or groups, as a necessary step within the innovation process.

For example, Amabile et al. (1996) suggest that while innovation "begins with creative ideas,"

"...creativity by individuals and teams is a starting point for innovation; the first is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the second."[1]

Alternatively, there is no real difference between these terms, as creativity is both novel and appropriate (which implies successful application). It seems that creativity is preferred in art contexts whereas innovation in business ones.

History of the term and the concept

Main article: History of the concept of creativity

The ways in which societies have perceived the concept of creativity have changed throughout history, as has the term itself. The ancient Greek concept of art (in Greek, "techne"—the root of "technique" and "technology"), with the exception of poetry, involved not freedom of action but subjection to rules. In Rome, this Greek concept was partly shaken, and visual artists were viewed as sharing, with poets, imagination and artistic inspiration.[2]

Although neither the Greeks nor the Romans had a word that directly corresponded to the word "creativity," their art, architecture, music, inventions and discoveries provide numerous examples of what today would be described as creative works. The Greek scientist of Syracuse, Archimedes experienced the creative moment in his Eureka experience, finding the answer to a problem he had been wrestling with for a long time. At the time, the concept of "genius" probably came closest to describing the creative talents that brought forth such works.[3]

A fundamental change came in the Christian period: "creatio" came to designate God's act of "creation from nothing". "Creatio" thus took on a different meaning than "facere" ("to make") and ceased to apply to human functions. The ancient view that art is not a domain of creativity persisted in this period.[4]

A shift occurred in modern times. Renaissance men had a sense of their own independence, freedom and creativity, and sought to give voice to this sense. The first to actually apply the word "creativity" was the Polish poet Maciej Kazimierz Sarbiewski, who applied it exclusively to poetry. For over a century and a half, the idea of human creativity met with resistance, due to the fact that the term "creation" was reserved for creation "from nothing." Baltasar Gracián (1601–58) would only venture to write: "Art is the completion of nature, as if it were a second Creator..."[5]

By the 18th century and the Age of Enlightenment, the concept of creativity was appearing more often in art theory, and was linked with the concept of imagination.[4]

The Western view of creativity can be contrasted with the Eastern view. For Hindus, Confucianists, Taoists and Buddhists, creation was at most a kind of discovery or mimicry, and the idea of creation "from nothing" had no place in these philosophies and religions.[3]

In the West, by the 19th century, not only had art come to be regarded as creativity, but it alone was so regarded. When later, at the turn of the 20th century, there began to be discussion of creativity in the sciences (e.g., Jan Łukasiewicz, 1878–1956) and in nature (e.g., Henri Bergson), this was generally taken as the transference, to the sciences, of concepts that were proper to art.[4]

In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, leading mathematicians and scientists such as Hermann von Helmholtz (1896) and Henri Poincaré (1908) began to reflect on and publicly discuss their creative processes, and these insights were built on in early accounts of the creative process by pioneering theorists such as Graham Wallas (1926) and Max Wertheimer (1945).

However, the formal starting point for the scientific study of creativity, from the standpoint of orthodox psychological literature, is generally considered to have been J. P. Guilford's 1950 address to the American Psychological Association, which helped popularize the topic[6] and focus attention on a scientific approach to conceptualizing creativity and measuring it psychometrically.

In parallel with these developments, other investigators have taken a more pragmatic approach, teaching practical creativity techniques. Three of the best-known are:

Creativity in psychology and cognitive science

The study of the mental representations and processes underlying creative thought belongs to the domains of psychology and cognitive science.

A psychodynamic approach to understanding creativity was proposed by Sigmund Freud, who suggested that creativity arises as a result of frustrated desires for fame, fortune, and love, with the energy that was previously tied up in frustration and emotional tension in the neurosis being sublimated into creative activity. Freud later retracted this view.[How to reference and link to summary or text]

Graham Wallas

Graham Wallas & Richard Smith, in their work Art of Thought, published in 1926, presented one of the first models of the creative process. In the Wallas stage model, creative insights and illuminations may be explained by a process consisting of 5 stages:

(i) preparation (preparatory work on a problem that focuses the individual's mind on the problem and explores the problem's dimensions),
(ii) incubation (where the problem is internalized into the unconscious mind and nothing appears externally to be happening),
(iii) intimation (the creative person gets a 'feeling' that a solution is on its way),
(iv) illumination or insight (where the creative idea bursts forth from its preconscious processing into conscious awareness); and
(v) verification (where the idea is consciously verified, elaborated, and then applied).

In numerous publications, Wallas' model is just treated as four stages, with "intimation" seen as a sub-stage. There has been some empirical research looking at whether, as the concept of "incubation" in Wallas' model implies, a period of interruption or rest from a problem may aid creative problem-solving. Ward[7] lists various hypotheses that have been advanced to explain why incubation may aid creative problem-solving, and notes how some empirical evidence is consistent with the hypothesis that incubation aids creative problem-solving in that it enables "forgetting" of misleading clues. Absence of incubation may lead the problem solver to become fixated on inappropriate strategies of solving the problem.[8] This work disputes the earlier hypothesis that creative solutions to problems arise mysteriously from the unconscious mind while the conscious mind is occupied on other tasks.[9]

Wallas considered creativity to be a legacy of the evolutionary process, which allowed humans to quickly adapt to rapidly changing environments. Simonton[10] provides an updated perspective on this view in his book, Origins of genius: Darwinian perspectives on creativity.

J.P. Guilford

Guilford[11] performed important work in the field of creativity, drawing a distinction between convergent and divergent production (commonly renamed convergent and divergent thinking). Convergent thinking involves aiming for a single, correct solution to a problem, whereas divergent thinking involves creative generation of multiple answers to a set problem. Divergent thinking is sometimes used as a synonym for creativity in psychology literature. Other researchers have occasionally used the terms flexible thinking or fluid intelligence, which are roughly similar to (but not synonymous with) creativity.

Arthur Koestler

In The Act of Creation, Arthur Koestler[12] lists three types of creative individual - the Artist, the Sage and the Jester.

Believers in this trinity hold all three elements necessary in business and can identify them all in "truly creative" companies as well. Koestler introduced the concept of bisociation - that creativity arises as a result of the intersection of two quite different frames of reference.

Geneplore model

In 1992 Finke et al. proposed the 'Geneplore' model, in which creativity takes place in two phases: a generative phase, where an individual constructs mental representations called preinventive structures, and an exploratory phase where those structures are used to come up with creative ideas. Weisberg[13] argued, by contrast, that creativity only involves ordinary cognitive processes yielding extraordinary results.

Conceptual blending

In the 90s, various approaches in cognitive science that dealt with metaphor, analogy and structure mapping have been converging, and a new integrative approach to the study of creativity in science, art and humor has emerged under the label conceptual blending.

"Creativity is the ability to illustrate what is outside the box from within the box." -The Ride

Psychological examples from science and mathematics

Jacques Hadamard

Jacques Hadamard, in his book Psychology of Invention in the Mathematical Field, uses introspection to describe mathematical thought processes. In contrast to authors who identify language and cognition, he describes his own mathematical thinking as largely wordless, often accompanied by mental images that represent the entire solution to a problem. He surveyed 100 of the leading physicists of his day (ca. 1900), asking them how they did their work. Many of the responses mirrored his own.

Hadamard described the experiences of the mathematicians/theoretical physicists Carl Friedrich Gauss, Hermann von Helmholtz, Henri Poincaré and others as viewing entire solutions with “sudden spontaneity.”[14]

The same has been reported in literature by many others, such as Denis Brian,[15] G. H. Hardy[16] Walter Heitler,[17] B. L. van der Waerden,[18] and Harold Ruegg.[19]

To elaborate on one example, Einstein, after years of fruitless calculations, suddenly had the solution to the general theory of relativity revealed in a dream “like a giant die making an indelible impress, a huge map of the universe outlined itself in one clear vision.”[20]

Hadamard described the process as having steps (i) preparation, (ii) incubation, (iv) illumination, and (v) verification of the five-step Graham Wallas creative-process model, leaving out (iii) intimation, with the first three cited by Hadamard as also having been put forth by Helmholtz:[21]

Marie-Louise von Franz

Marie-Louise von Franz, a colleague of the eminent psychiatrist Carl Jung, noted that in these unconscious scientific discoveries the “always recurring and important factor ... is the simultaneity with which the complete solution is intuitively perceived and which can be checked later by discursive reasoning.” She attributes the solution presented “as an archetypal pattern or image.”[22] As cited by von Franz,[23] according to Jung, “Archetypes ... manifest themselves only through their ability to organize images and ideas, and this is always an unconscious process which cannot be detected until afterwards.”[24]

Creativity and affect

Some theories suggest that creativity may be particularly susceptible to affective influence.

Creativity and positive affect relations

According to Isen, positive affect has three primary effects on cognitive activity:

  1. Positive affect makes additional cognitive material available for processing, increasing the number of cognitive elements available for association;
  2. Positive affect leads to defocused attention and a more complex cognitive context, increasing the breadth of those elements that are treated as relevant to the problem;
  3. Positive affect increases cognitive flexibility, increasing the probability that diverse cognitive elements will in fact become associated. Together, these processes lead positive affect to have a positive influence on creativity.

Fredrickson in her Broaden and Build Model suggests that positive emotions such as joy and love broaden a person’s available repertoire of cognitions and actions, thus enhancing creativity.

According to these researchers, positive emotions increasing the number of cognitive elements available for association (attention scope) and the number of elements that are relevant to the problem (cognitive scope).

Creativity and negative affect relations

On the other hand, some theorists have suggested that negative affect leads to greater creativity. A cornerstone of this perspective is empirical evidence of a relationship between affective illness and creativity. In a study of 1,005 prominent 20th century individuals from over 45 different professions, the University of Kentucky’s Arnold Ludwig found a slight but significant correlation between depression and level of creative achievement. In addition, several systematic studies of highly - creative individuals and their relatives have uncovered a higher incidence of affective disorders (primarily bipolar illness and depression) than that found in the general population.

Creativity and affect at work

Three patterns may exist between affect and creativity at work: positive (or negative) mood, or change in mood, predictably precedes creativity; creativity predictably precedes mood; and whether affect and creativity occur simultaneously. It was found that not only might affect precede creativity, but creative outcomes might provoke affect as well. At its simplest level, the experience of creativity is itself a work event, and like other events in the organizational context, it could evoke emotion. Qualitative research and anecdotal accounts of creative achievement in the arts and sciences suggest that creative insight is often followed by feelings of elation. For example, Albert Einstein called his 1907 general theory of relativity “the happiest thought of my life.” Empirical evidence on this matter is still very tentative, In contrast to the possible incubation effects of affective state on subsequent creativity, the affective consequences of creativity are likely to be more direct and immediate. In general, affective events provoke immediate and relatively-fleeting emotional reactions. Thus, if creative performance at work is an affective event for the individual doing the creative work, such an effect would likely be evident only in same-day data.

Another longitudinal research found several insights regarding the relations between creativity and emotion at work. First - a positive relationship between positive affect and creativity, and no evidence of a negative relationship. The more positive a person’s affect on a given day, the more creative thinking they evidenced that day and the next day – even controlling for that next day’s mood. There was even some evidence of an effect two days later

In addition, the researchers found no evidence that people were more creative when they experienced both positive and negative affect on the same day. The weight of evidence supports a purely linear form of the affect-creativity relationship, at least over the range of affect and creativity covered in our study: the more positive a person’s affect, the higher their creativity in a work setting.

Finally, they found four patterns of affect and creativity affect can operate as an antecedent to creativity; as a direct consequence of creativity; as an indirect consequence of creativity; and affect can occur simultaneously with creative activity. Thus, it appears that people’s feelings and creative cognitions are interwoven in several distinct ways within the complex fabric of their daily work lives.

Creativity and intelligence

Cerebral Cortex
The frontal lobe (shown in blue) is thought to play an important role in creativity

There has been debate in the psychological literature about whether intelligence and creativity are part of the same process (the conjoint hypothesis) or represent distinct mental processes (the disjoint hypothesis). Evidence from attempts to look at correlations between intelligence and creativity from the 1950s onwards, by authors such as Barron, Guilford or Wallach and Kogan, regularly suggested that correlations between these concepts were low enough to justify treating them as distinct concepts.

Some researchers believe that creativity is the outcome of the same cognitive processes as intelligence, and is only judged as creativity in terms of its consequences, i.e. when the outcome of cognitive processes happens to produce something novel, a view which Perkins has termed the "nothing special" hypothesis.[25]

A very popular model is what has come to be known as "the threshold hypothesis", proposed by Ellis Paul Torrance, which holds that a high degree of intelligence appears to be a necessary but not sufficient condition for high creativity.[11] This means that, in a general sample, there will be a positive correlation between creativity and intelligence, but this correlation will not be found if only a sample of the most highly intelligent people are assessed. Research into the threshold hypothesis, however, has produced mixed results ranging from enthusiastic support to refutation and rejection.[26]

An alternative perspective, Renzulli's three-rings hypothesis, sees giftedness as based on both intelligence and creativity. More on both the threshold hypothesis and Renzulli's work can be found in O'Hara and Sternberg.[25]

Neurobiology of creativity

The neurobiology of creativity has been addressed[27] in the article "Creative Innovation: Possible Brain Mechanisms." The authors write that "creative innovation might require coactivation and communication between regions of the brain that ordinarily are not strongly connected". Highly creative people who excel at creative innovation tend to differ from others in three ways:

Thus, the frontal lobe appears to be the part of the cortex that is most important for creativity.

This article also explored the links between creativity and sleep, mood and addiction disorders, and depression.

In 2005, Alice Flaherty presented a three-factor model of the creative drive. Drawing from evidence in brain imaging, drug studies and lesion analysis, she described the creative drive as resulting from an interaction of the frontal lobes, the temporal lobes, and dopamine from the limbic system. The frontal lobes can be seen as responsible for idea generation, and the temporal lobes for idea editing and evaluation. Abnormalities in the frontal lobe (such as depression or anxiety) generally decrease creativity, while abnormalities in the temporal lobe often increase creativity. High activity in the temporal lobe typically inhibits activity in the frontal lobe, and vice versa. High dopamine levels increase general arousal and goal directed behaviors and reduce latent inhibition, and all three effects increase the drive to generate ideas.[28]

Working memory and the cerebellum

Vandervert[29] described how the brain’s frontal lobes and the cognitive functions of the cerebellum collaborate to produce creativity and innovation. Vandervert’s explanation rests on considerable evidence that all processes of working memory (responsible for processing all thought[30]) are adaptively modeled by the cerebellum.[31] The cerebellum (consisting of 100 billion neurons, which is more than the entirety of the rest of the brain[32] is also widely known to adaptively model all bodily movement. The cerebellum’s adaptive models of working memory processing are then fed back to especially frontal lobe working memory control processes[33] where creative and innovative thoughts arise.[34] (Apparently, creative insight or the ‘’aha’’ experience is then triggered in the temporal lobe.[35]) According to Vandervert, the details of creative adaptation begin in ‘’forward’’ cerebellar models which are anticipatory/exploratory controls for movement and thought. These cerebellar processing and control architectures have been termed Hierarchical Modular Selection and Identification for Control (HMOSAIC).[36] New, hierarchically arranged levels of the cerebellar control architecture (HMOSAIC) develop as mental mulling in working memory is extended over time. These new levels of the control architecture are fed forward to the frontal lobes. Since the cerebellum adaptively models all movement and all levels of thought and emotion,[37] Vandervert’s approach helps explain creativity and innovation in sports, art, music, the design of video games, technology, mathematics and thought in general.

Creativity and mental health

Main article: Creativity and mental illness

A study by psychologist J. Philippe Rushton found creativity to correlate with intelligence and psychoticism.[38] Another study found creativity to be greater in schizotypal than in either normal or schizophrenic individuals. While divergent thinking was associated with bilateral activation of the prefrontal cortex, schizotypal individuals were found to have much greater activation of their right prefrontal cortex.[39] This study hypothesizes that such individuals are better at accessing both hemispheres, allowing them to make novel associations at a faster rate. In agreement with this hypothesis, ambidexterity is also associated with schizotypal and schizophrenic individuals.

Particularly strong links have been identified between creativity and mood disorders, particularly manic-depressive disorder (a.k.a. bipolar disorder) and depressive disorder (a.k.a. unipolar disorder). In Touched with Fire: Manic-Depressive Illness and the Artistic Temperament, Kay Redfield Jamison summarizes studies of mood-disorder rates in writers, poets and artists. She also explores research that identifies mood disorders in such famous writers and artists as Ernest Hemingway (who shot himself after electroconvulsive treatment), Virginia Woolf (who drowned herself when she felt a depressive episode coming on), composer Robert Schumann (who died in a mental institution), and even the famed visual artist Michelangelo.

Creativity in various contexts

Creativity has been studied from a variety of perspectives and is important in numerous contexts. Most of these approaches are undisciplinary, and it is therefore difficult to form a coherent overall view.[6] The following sections examine some of the areas in which creativity is seen as being important.

Creativity in diverse cultures

Creativity is a scientific concept which is mostly rooted within a Western creationist perspective. Francois Jullien in 'Process and Creation, 1989' is inviting us to look at that concept from a Chinese cultural point of view. Fangqi Xu[40] has reported creativity courses in a range of countries. Todd Lubart has studied extensively the cultural aspects of creativity and innovation.

Henry Moore's Reclining Figure

Creativity in art and literature

Most people associate creativity with the fields of art and literature. In these fields, originality is considered to be a sufficient condition for creativity, unlike other fields where both originality and appropriateness are necessary.[41]

Within the different modes of artistic expression, one can postulate a continuum extending from "interpretation" to "innovation". Established artistic movements and genres pull practitioners to the "interpretation" end of the scale, whereas original thinkers strive towards the "innovation" pole. Note that we conventionally expect some "creative" people (dancers, actors, orchestral members, etc.) to perform (interpret) while allowing others (writers, painters, composers, etc.) more freedom to express the new and the different.

Contrast alternative theories, for example:

  • artistic inspiration, which provides the transmission of visions from divine sources such as the Muses; a taste of the Divine. Compare with invention.
  • artistic evolution, which stresses obeying established ("classical") rules and imitating or appropriating to produce subtly different but unshockingly understandable work. Compare with crafts.
  • artistic conversation, as in Urrealism, which stresses the depth of communication when the creative product is the language.

In the art, practice and theory of Davor Dzalto, human creativity is taken as a basic feature of both the personal existence of human being and art production.

Creative industries and services

Today, creativity forms the core activity of a growing section of the global economy — the so-called "creative industries" — capitalistically generating (generally non-tangible) wealth through the creation and exploitation of intellectual property or through the provision of creative services. The Creative Industries Mapping Document 2001 provides an overview of the creative industries in the UK. The creative professional workforce is becoming a more integral part of industrialized nations' economies.

Creative professions include writing, art, design, theater, television, radio, motion pictures, related crafts, as well as marketing, strategy, some aspects of scientific research and development, product development, some types of teaching and curriculum design, and more. Since many creative professionals (actors and writers, for example) are also employed in secondary professions, estimates of creative professionals are often inaccurate. By some estimates, approximately 10 million US workers are creative professionals; depending upon the depth and breadth of the definition, this estimate may be double.

Creativity in other professions

Isaac Newton's law of gravity is popularly attributed to a creative leap he experienced when observing a falling apple.

Creativity is also seen as being increasingly important in a variety of other professions. Architecture and industrial design are the fields most often associated with creativity, and more generally the fields of design and design research. These fields explicitly value creativity, and journals such as Design Studies have published many studies on creativity and creative problem solving.[42]

Fields such as science and engineering have, by contrast, experienced a less explicit (but arguably no less important) relation to creativity. Simonton[10] shows how some of the major scientific advances of the 20th century can be attributed to the creativity of individuals. This ability will also be seen as increasingly important for engineers in years to come.[43]

Accounting has also been associated with creativity with the popular euphemism creative accounting. Although this term often implies unethical practices, Amabile[41] has suggested that even this profession can benefit from the (ethical) application of creative thinking. Al-Beraidi and Rickards had demonstrated that to be the case in a study of Saudi Arabian financial consultants and accounting professionals[44]

Creativity in organizations

Amabile[41] argued that to enhance creativity in business, three components were needed:

  • Expertise (technical, procedural & intellectual knowledge),
  • Creative thinking skills (how flexibly and imaginatively people approach problems),
  • and Motivation (especially intrinsic motivation).

In 1986 in Europe, The Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research, TNO, supported an international conference Creativity and Innovation: towards a European Network with the intention of helping ‘build a greater understanding of innovation and creative processes’ across Europe.

The organizing committee became known as the Periscope group which also helped in the formation of a sister organization in America coordinated by the Prism group. Stan Gryskiewicz of The Center for Creative Leadership and a member of the Prism group reported in 1992 that

The conference was to be the first in a series of events still held biennially in Europe. In alternative years a similar sequence of conferences have been held in North American venues, with collaboration between the steering groups.[45]

Nonaka, who examined several successful Japanese companies, similarly saw creativity and knowledge creation as being important to the success of organizations.[46] In particular, he emphasized the role that tacit knowledge has to play in the creative process.

Economic views of creativity

In the early 20th century, Joseph Schumpeter introduced the economic theory of creative destruction, to describe the way in which old ways of doing things are endogenously destroyed and replaced by the new.

Creativity is also seen by economists such as Paul Romer as an important element in the recombination of elements to produce new technologies and products and, consequently, economic growth. Creativity leads to capital, and creative products are protected by intellectual property laws.

Creativity is also an important aspect to understanding Entrepreneurship.

The creative class is seen by some to be an important driver of modern economies. In his 2002 book, The Rise of the Creative Class, economist Richard Florida popularized the notion that regions with "3 T's of economic development: Technology, Talent and Tolerance" also have high concentrations of creative professionals and tend to have a higher level of economic development.

Fostering creativity

Main article: creativity techniques
Main article: The teaching of creativity

Daniel Pink, in his 2005 book A Whole New Mind, repeating arguments posed throughout the 20th century, argues that we are entering a new age where creativity is becoming increasingly important. In this conceptual age, we will need to foster and encourage right-directed thinking (representing creativity and emotion) over left-directed thinking (representing logical, analytical thought).

Nickerson[47] provides a summary of the various creativity techniques that have been proposed. These include approaches that have been developed by both academia and industry:

  1. Establishing purpose and intention
  2. Building basic skills
  3. Encouraging acquisitions of domain-specific knowledge
  4. Stimulating and rewarding curiosity and exploration
  5. Building motivation, especially internal motivation
  6. Encouraging confidence and a willingness to take risks
  7. Focusing on mastery and self-competition
  8. Promoting supportable beliefs about creativity
  9. Providing opportunities for choice and discovery
  10. Developing self-management (metacognitive skills)
  11. Teaching techniques and strategies for facilitating creative performance
  12. Providing balance

Enhancing the creative process with new technologies

A simple but accurate review on this new Human-Computer Interactions (HCI) angle for promoting creativity has been written by Todd Lubart, an invitation full of creative ideas to develop further this new field.

The Creativity and Cognition conference series, sponsored by the ACM and running since 1993 has been an important venue for publishing research on the intersection between technology and creativity. The conference now runs biannually, next taking place in 2009.

Social attitudes to creativity

Although the benefits of creativity to society as a whole have been noted,[48] social attitudes about this topic remain divided. The wealth of literature regarding the development of creativity[49] and the profusion of creativity techniques indicate wide acceptance, at least among academics, that creativity is desirable.

There is, however, a dark side to creativity, in that it represents a "quest for a radical autonomy apart from the constraints of social responsibility".[50] In other words, by encouraging creativity we are encouraging a departure from society's existing norms and values. Expectation of conformity runs contrary to the spirit of creativity. Nevertheless, employers are increasingly valuing creative skills. A report by the Business Council of Australia, for example, has called for a higher level of creativity in graduates.[51] The ability to "think outside the box" is highly sought after. However, the above-mentioned paradox may well imply that firms pay lip service to thinking outside the box while maintaining traditional, hierarchical organization structures in which individual creativity is not rewarded.

Creativity Journals

Journals specialising in articles on creativity include: Creativity Research Journal, Creativity and Innovation Management, and The Journal of Creative Behavior.

See also


  1. Amabile, T. M., R. Conti, H. Coon, et al. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Review 39 (5): 1154–1184.
  2. Tatarkiewicz, pp. 244–46.
  3. 3.0 3.1 (Albert & Runco, 1999)
  4. 4.0 4.1 4.2 (Tatarkiewicz, 1980)
  5. Tatarkiewicz, pp. 247–48.
  6. 6.0 6.1 (Sternberg, 1999)
  7. (Ward, 2003)
  8. (Smith, 1981)
  9. (Anderson, 2000)
  10. 10.0 10.1 (Simonton, 1999)
  11. 11.0 11.1 (Guilford, 1967)
  12. (Koestler, 1964)
  13. (Weisberg, 1993)
  14. Hadamard, 1954, pp. 13-16.
  15. Brian, 1996, p. 159.
  16. G. H. Hardy cited how the mathematician Srinivasa Ramanujan had “moments of sudden illumination.” See Kanigel, 1992, pp. 285-286.
  17. Interview with Walter Heitler by John Heilbron (March 18, 1963. Archives for the History of Quantum Physics), as cited in and quoted from in Gavroglu, Kostas Fritz London: A Scientific Biography p. 45 (Cambridge, 2005).
  18. von Franz, 1992, p. 297 and 314. Cited work: B. L. van der Waerden, Einfall und Überlegung: Drei kleine Beiträge zur Psychologie des mathematischen Denkens (Gasel & Stuttgart, 1954).
  19. von Franz, 1992, p. 297 and 314. Cited work: Harold Ruegg, Imagination: An Inquiry into the Sources and Conditions That Stimulate Creativity (New York: Harper, 1954).
  20. Brian, 1996, p. 159.
  21. Hadamard, 1954, p. 56.
  22. von Franz, 1992, pp. 297-298.
  23. von Franz, 1992 297-298 and 314.
  24. Jung, 1981, paragraph 440, p. 231.
  25. 25.0 25.1 (O'Hara & Sternberg, 1999)
  26. (Plucker & Renzulli, 1999)
  27. (Kenneth M Heilman, MD, Stephen E. Nadeau, MD, and David Q. Beversdorf, MD. "Creative Innovation: Possible Brain Mechanisms" Neurocase (2003)
  28. (Flaherty, 2005)
  29. Vandervert 2003a, 2003b; Vandervert, Schimpf & Liu, 2007
  30. Miyake & Shah, 1999
  31. Schmahmann, 1997, 2004
  32. Andersen, Korbo & Pakkenberg, 1992
  33. Miller & Cohen, 2001
  34. Vandervert, 2003a
  35. Jung-Beeman, Bowden, Haberman, Frymiare, Arambel-Liu, Greenblatt, Reber & Kounios, 2004
  36. Imamizu, Kuroda, Miyauchi, Yoshioka & Kawato, 2003
  37. Schmahmann, 2004,
  38. (Rushton, 1990)
  39. (Actual paper)
  40. Fangqi Xu, et. al. A Survey of Creativity Courses at Universities in Principal Countries
  41. 41.0 41.1 41.2 (Amabile, 1998; Sullivan and Harper, 2009)
  42. for a typical example see (Dorst et al., 2001)
  43. (National Academy of Engineering 2005)
  44. Al-Beraidi, M., and Rickards, T., (2006). "Rethinking Creativity in the Accounting Profession: to be professional and creative", Journal of Accounting and Organizational Change, Vol 2,1, 25-41
  45. Gryskiewicz, S., (1992) Letter from America (With respectful acknowledgement to Alistair Cooke), Creativity and Innovation Management, 1,4, 214-215
  46. (Nonaka, 1991)
  47. (Nickerson, 1999)
  48. (Runco 2004)
  49. see (Feldman, 1999) for example
  50. (McLaren, 1999)
  51. (BCA, 2006)


  • Albert, R.S. & Runce, M.A. (1999). "A History of Research on Creativity" ed. Sternberg, R.J. Handbook of Creativity, Cambridge University Press.
  • Amabile, T.M. (1998). How to kill creativity. Harvard Business Review 76 (5).
  • Amabile, T.M. (1996). Creativity in context, Westview Press.
  • Anderson, J.R. (2000). Cognitive psychology and its implications, Worth Publishers.
  • Alvino, Carlos Eduardo Paladino, Silvia Regina Winetzki, Jethro de LoxLok, Verônica de Thule M.A. (2007). ed. Núcleo de Inteligência Tratado de Alquimia, Núcleo de Inteligência.
  • Ayan,Jordan (1997). Aha! - 10 Ways To Free Your Creative Spirit and Find Your Great Ideas, Random House.
  • Balzac, Fred (2006). Exploring the Brain's Role in Creativity. NeuroPsychiatry Reviews 7 (5): pp. 1, 19-20.
  • BCA (2006). New Concepts in Innovation: The Keys to a Growing Australia, Business Council of Australia.
  • Brian, Denis, Einstein: A Life (John Wiley and Sons, 1996) ISBN 0-471-11459-6
  • Boden, M.A. (2004). The Creative Mind: Myths And Mechanisms, Routledge.
  • Carson, S.H., Peterson, J.B., Higgins, D.M. (2005). Reliability, Validity, and Factor Structure of the Creative Achievement Questionnaire. Creativity Research Journal 17 (1): 37-50.
  • Craft, A. (2005). Creativity in Schools: tensions and dilemmas, Routledge.
  • Dorst, K., Cross, N. (2001). Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem–solution. Design Studies 22 (5): 425-437.
  • Feldman, D.H. (1999). "The Development of Creativity" ed. Sternberg, R.J. Handbook of Creativity, Cambridge University Press.
  • Finke, R.; Ward, T.B. & Smith, S.M. (1992). Creative cognition: Theory, research, and applications, MIT Press.
  • Flaherty, A.W, (2005). Frontotemporal and dopaminergic control of idea generation and creative drive. Journal of Comparative Neurology 493 (1): 147-153.
  • Florida, R. (2002). The Rise of the Creative Class: And How It's Transforming Work, Leisure, Community and Everyday Life, Basic Books.
  • Guilford, J.P. (1967). The Nature of Human Intelligence.
  • Hadamard, Jacques, The Psychology of Invention in the Mathematical Field (Dover, 1954) ISBN 0-486-20107-4
  • Helmholtz, H. v. L. (1896). Vortrage und reden (5th Auffl.), Friederich Vieweg und Sohn.
  • Jeffery. G. (2005). The Creative College: building a successful learning culture in the arts, Trentham Books.
  • Johnson, D.M. (1972). Systematic introduction to the psychology of thinking, Harper & Row.
  • Jullien, F.; Paula M. Varsano (Translator) (2004). In Praise of Blandness: Proceeding from Chinese Thought and Aesthetics, Zone Books,U.S.. ISBN-10: 1890951412; ISBN-13: 978-1890951412
  • Jung, C. G., The Collected Works of C. G. Jung. Volume 8. The Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche. (Princeton, 1981) ISBN 0-691-09774-7
  • Kanigel, Robert, The Man Who Knew Infinity: A Life of the Genius Ramanujan (Washington Square Press, 1992) ISBN 0-671-75061-5
  • Kraft, U. (2005). Unleashing Creativity. Scientific American Mind April: 16-23.
  • Koestler, A. (1964). The Act of Creation.
  • McLaren, R.B. (1999). "Dark Side of Creativity" ed. Runco, M.A. & Pritzker, S.R. Encyclopedia of Creativity, Academic Press.
  • McCrae, R.R. (1987). Creativity, Divergent Thinking, and Openness to Experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52 (6): 1258-1265.
  • Michalko, M.. Cracking Creativity: The Secrets of Creative Genius.
  • Nachmanovitch, Stephen (1990). Free Play: Improvisation in Life and Art, Penguin-Putnam.
  • National Academy of Engineering (2005). Educating the engineer of 2020 : adapting engineering education to the new century, National Academies Press.
  • Nickerson, R.S. (1999). "Enhancing Creativity" ed. Sternberg, R.J. Handbook of Creativity, Cambridge University Press.
  • Nonaka, I. (1991). The Knowledge-Creating Company. Harvard Business Review 69 (6): 96-104.
  • O'Hara, L.A. & Sternberg, R.J. (1999). "Creativity and Intelligence" ed. Sternberg, R.J. Handbook of Creativity, Cambridge University Press.
  • Pink, D.H. (2005). A Whole New Mind: Moving from the information age into the conceptual age, Allen & Unwin.
  • Plucker, J.A. & Renzulli, J.S. (1999). "Psychometric Approaches to the Study of Human Creativity" ed. Sternberg, R.J. Handbook of Creativity, Cambridge University Press.
  • Poincaré, H. (1908/1952). "Mathematical creation" ed. Ghiselin, B. The Creative Process: A Symposium, Mentor.
  • Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. Phi Delta Kappan 42: 305-311.
  • Rushton, J.P. (1990). Creativity, intelligence, and psychoticism. Personality and Individual Differences 11: 1291-1298.
  • Runco, M.A. (2004). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology 55: 657-687.
  • Simonton, D.K. (1999). Origins of genius: Darwinian perspectives on creativity, Oxford University Press.
  • Smith, S.M. & Blakenship, S.E. (1991). Incubation and the persistence of fixation in problem solving. American Journal of Psychology 104: 61–87.
  • Sternberg, R.J.; Lubart, T.I. (1999). "The Concept of Creativity: Prospects and Paradigms" ed. Sternberg, R.J. Handbook of Creativity, Cambridge University Press.
  • Tatarkiewicz, Władysław (1980). A History of Six Ideas: an Essay in Aesthetics, Translated from the Polish by Christopher Kasparek, The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
  • Taylor, C.W. (1988). "Various approaches to and definitions of creativity" ed. Sternberg, R.J. The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychological perspectives, Cambridge University Press.
  • Torrance, E.P. (1974). Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking, Personnel Press.
  • von Franz, Marie-Louise, Psyche and Matter (Shambhala, 1992) ISBN 0-87773-902-1
  • Wallas, G. (1926). Art of Thought.
  • Weisberg, R.W. (1993). Creativity: Beyond the myth of genius, Freeman.
  • Ward, T. (2003). "Creativity" ed. Nagel, L. Encyclopaedia of Cognition, New York: Macmillan.
  • Andersen, B., Korbo, L., & Pakkenberg, B. (1992). A quantitative study of the human cerebellum with unbiased stereological techniques. The Journal of Comparative Neurology, 326, 549-560.
  • Imamizu, H., Kuroda, T., Miyauchi, S., Yoshioka, T., & Kawato, M. (2003). Modular organization of internal models of tools in the cerebellum. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 100, (9), 5461-5466.
  • Jung-Beeman, M., Bowden, E., Haberman, J., Frymiare, J., Arambel-Liu, S., Greenblatt, R., Reber, P., & Kounios, J. (2004). Neural activity when people solve verbal problems with insight. PLOS Biology, 2, 500-510.
  • King, L. A., McKee Walker, L., & Broyles, S. J. (1996). Creativity and the five-factor model: Journal of Research in Personality Vol 30(2) Jun 1996, 189-203.
  • Miller, E., & Cohen, J. (2001). An integrative theory of prefrontal cortex function. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 24, 167-202.
  • Miyake, A., & Shah, P. (Eds.). (1999). Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Schmahmann, J. (Ed.). (1997). The cerebellum and cognition. New York: Academic Press.
  • Schmahmann, J. (2004). Disorders of the cerebellum: Ataxia, dysmetria of thought, and the cerebellar cognitive affective syndrome. Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, 16, 367-378.
  • Vandervert, L. (2003a). How working memory and cognitive modeling functions of the cerebellum contribute to discoveries in mathematics. New Ideas in Psychology, 21, 159-175.
  • Vandervert, L. (2003b). The neurophysiological basis of innovation. In L. V. Shavinina (Ed.) The international handbook on innovation (pp. 17-30). Oxford, England: Elsevier Science.
  • Vandervert, L., Schimpf, P., & Liu, H. (2007). How working memory and the cerebellum collaborate to produce creativity and innovation [Special Issue]. Creativity Research Journal, 19(1), 1-19.


  • Amabile, Teresa M; Barsade, Sigal G; Mueller, Jennifer S; Staw, Barry M. Affect and creativity at work. Administrative Science Quarterly. 2005. v. 50, p. 367-403.
  • Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly (1996). Creativity : Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention. New York: Harper Perennial. ISBN 0-06-092820-4
  • Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56, 218-226.
  • Isen, A. M., Daubman, K. A., & Nowicki, G. P. (1987). Positive affect facilitates creative problem solving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 1122-1131.

External links

Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to:


Other articles:

Professional societies:

This page uses Creative Commons Licensed content from Wikipedia (view authors).