Creativity is the ability to form novel and valuable ideas or works using the imagination. Products of creativity may be intangible (e.g., an idea, a scientific theory, a literary work, a musical composition, or a joke) or a physical object (e.g., an invention, a dish or meal, an item of jewelry, a costume, or a painting). Creativity may also describe the ability to find new solutions to problems, or new methods of performing a task or reaching a goal. Creativity therefore enables people to solve problems in new or innovative ways.
Most ancient cultures, including Ancient Greece, Ancient China, and Ancient India, lacked the concept of creativity, seeing art as a form of discovery, rather than a form of creation. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, creativity was seen as the sole province of God, and human creativity was considered an expression of God's work; the modern conception of creativity came about during the Renaissance, influenced by humanist ideas.
Scholarly interest in creativity is found in a number of disciplines, primarily psychology, business studies, and cognitive science; however, it is also present in education, the humanities (including philosophy and the arts), theology, and the social sciences (such as sociology, linguistics, and economics), as well as engineering, technology, and mathematics. Subjects of study include the relationships between creativity and general intelligence, personality, neural processes, and mental health; the potential for fostering creativity through education, training, and organizational practices; the factors that determine how creativity is evaluated and perceived; and the fostering of creativity for national economic benefit.[1] According to Harvard Business School, creativity benefits business by encouraging innovation, boosting productivity, enabling adaptability, and fostering growth.[2]
The English word "creativity" comes from the Latin terms Latin: creare (meaning 'to create') and (meaning 'to make'). Its derivational suffixes also comes from Latin. The word "create" appeared in English as early as the 14th century—notably in Chaucer's The Parson's Tale[3] to indicate divine creation.[4] The modern meaning of creativity in reference to human creation did not emerge until after the Enlightenment.
In a summary of scientific research into creativity, Michael Mumford suggests, "We seem to have reached a general agreement that creativity involves the production of novel, useful products."[5] In Robert Sternberg's words, creativity produces "something original and worthwhile".[6]
Authors have diverged dramatically in their precise definitions beyond these general commonalities: Peter Meusburger estimates that over a hundred different definitions can be found in the literature, typically elaborating on the context (field, organization, environment, etc.) that determines the originality and/or appropriateness of the created object and the processes through which it came about.[7] As an illustration, one definition given by Dr. E. Paul Torrance in the context of assessing an individual's creative ability is "a process of becoming sensitive to problems, deficiencies, gaps in knowledge, missing elements, disharmonies, and so on; identifying the difficulty; searching for solutions, making guesses, or formulating hypotheses about the deficiencies: testing and retesting these hypotheses and possibly modifying and retesting them; and finally communicating the results."[8]
Ignacio L. Götz, following the etymology of the word, argues that creativity is not necessarily "making". He confines it to the act of creating without thinking about the end product.[9] While many definitions of creativity seem almost synonymous with originality, he also emphasized the difference between creativity and originality. Götz asserted that one can be creative without necessarily being original. When someone creates something, they are certainly creative at that point, but they may not be original in the case that their creation is not something new. However, originality and creativity can go hand-in-hand.
Creativity in general is usually distinguished from innovation in particular, where the stress is on implementation. For example, Teresa Amabile and Pratt define creativity as the production of novel and useful ideas and innovation as the implementation of creative ideas,[10] while the OECD and Eurostat state that "Innovation is more than a new idea or an invention. An innovation requires implementation, either by being put into active use or by being made available for use by other parties, firms, individuals, or organizations."[11]
There is also emotional creativity,[12] which is described as a pattern of cognitive abilities and personality traits related to originality and appropriateness in emotional experience.[13]
See main article: History of the concept of creativity.
Most ancient cultures, including Ancient Greece, Ancient China, and Ancient India,[14] lacked the concept of creativity, seeing art as a form of discovery and not creation. The ancient Greeks had no terms corresponding to "to create" or "creator" except for the expression "" ("to make"), which only applied to (poetry) and to the (poet, or "maker" who made it. Plato did not believe in art as a form of creation. Asked in the Republic,[15] "Will we say of a painter that he makes something?" he answers, "Certainly not, he merely imitates."
It is commonly argued that the notion of "creativity" originated in Western cultures through Christianity, as divine inspiration. According to scholars, "the earliest Western conception of creativity was the Biblical story of the creation given in Genesis." However, this is not creativity in the modern sense, which did not arise until the Renaissance. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, creativity was the sole province of God; humans were not considered to have the ability to create something new except as an expression of God's work. A concept similar to that in Christianity existed in Greek culture. For instance, Muses were seen as mediating inspiration from the gods.[16] Romans and Greeks invoked the concept of an external creative "daemon" (Greek) or "genius" (Latin), linked to the sacred or the divine. However, none of these views are similar to the modern concept of creativity, and the rejection of creativity in favor of discovery and the belief that individual creation was a conduit of the divine would dominate the West probably until the Renaissance and even later.
It was during the Renaissance that creativity was first seen, not as a conduit for the divine, but from the abilities of "great men". The development of the modern concept of creativity began in the Renaissance, when creation began to be perceived as having originated from the abilities of the individual and not God. This could be attributed to the leading intellectual movement of the time, aptly named humanism, which developed an intensely human-centric outlook on the world, valuing the intellect and achievement of the individual.[17] From this philosophy arose the Renaissance man (or polymath), an individual who embodies the principles of humanism in their ceaseless courtship with knowledge and creation.[18] One of the most well-known and immensely accomplished examples is Leonardo da Vinci.
However, the shift from divine inspiration to the abilities of the individual was gradual and would not become immediately apparent until the Enlightenment. By the 18th century and the Age of Enlightenment, mention of creativity (notably in aesthetics), linked with the concept of imagination, became more frequent. In the writing of Thomas Hobbes, imagination became a key element of human cognition; William Duff was one of the first to identify imagination as a quality of genius, typifying the separation being made between talent (productive, but not new ground) and genius.
As an independent topic of study, creativity effectively received little attention until the 19th century. Runco and Albert argue that creativity as the subject of proper study began seriously to emerge in the late 19th century with the increased interest in individual differences inspired by the arrival of Darwinism. In particular, they refer to the work of Francis Galton, who, through his eugenicist outlook took a keen interest in the heritability of intelligence, with creativity taken as an aspect of genius.
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, leading mathematicians and scientists such as Hermann von Helmholtz (1896)[19] and Henri Poincaré (1908)[20] began to reflect on and publicly discuss their creative processes.
The insights of Poincaré and von Helmholtz were built on in early accounts of the creative process by pioneering theorists such as Graham Wallas and Max Wertheimer. In his work Art of Thought, published in 1926,[21] Wallas 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 five stages:
Wallas' model is also often treated as four stages, with "intimation" seen as a sub-stage.
Wallas considered creativity to be a legacy of the evolutionary process, which allowed humans to quickly adapt to rapidly changing environments. Simonton[22] provides an updated perspective on this view in his book, Origins of Genius: Darwinian Perspectives on creativity.
In 1927, Alfred North Whitehead gave the Gifford Lectures at the University of Edinburgh, later published as Process and Reality.[23] He is credited with having coined the term "creativity" to serve as the ultimate category of his metaphysical scheme: "Whitehead actually coined the term—our term, still the preferred currency of exchange among literature, science, and the arts—a term that quickly became so popular, so omnipresent, that its invention within living memory, and by Alfred North Whitehead of all people, quickly became occluded".
Although psychometric studies of creativity had been conducted by The London School of Psychology as early as 1927 with the work of H.L. Hargreaves into the Faculty of Imagination,[24] the formal psychometric measurement of creativity, from the standpoint of orthodox psychological literature, is usually considered to have begun with J.P. Guilford's address to the American Psychological Association in 1950.[25] The address helped to popularize the study of creativity and to focus attention on scientific approaches to conceptualizing creativity. Statistical analyzes led to the recognition of creativity (as measured) as a separate aspect of human cognition from IQ-type intelligence, into which it had previously been subsumed. Guilford's work suggested that above a threshold level of IQ, the relationship between creativity and classically measured intelligence broke down.[26]
Creativity is viewed differently in different countries.[27] For example, cross-cultural research centered in Hong Kong found that Westerners view creativity more in terms of the individual attributes of a person, such as their aesthetic taste, while Chinese people view creativity more in terms of the social influence of creative people (i.e., what they can contribute to society).[28] Mpofu et al. surveyed 28 African languages and found that 27 had no word which directly translated to "creativity" (the exception being Arabic).[29] The linguistic relativity hypothesis (i.e., that language can affect thought) suggests that the lack of an equivalent word for "creativity" may affect the views of creativity among speakers of such languages. However, more research would be needed to establish this, and there is certainly no suggestion that this linguistic difference makes people any less, or more, creative. Nevertheless, it is true that there has been very little research on creativity in Africa, and there has also been very little research on creativity in Latin America.[30] Creativity has been more thoroughly researched in the northern hemisphere, but here again there are cultural differences, even between countries or groups of countries in close proximity. For example, in Scandinavian countries, creativity is seen as an individual attitude which helps in coping with life's challenges,[31] while in Germany, creativity is seen more as a process that can be applied to help solve problems.[32]
James C. Kaufman and Ronald A. Beghetto introduced a "four C" model of creativity. The four "C's" are the following:
This model was intended to help accommodate models and theories of creativity that stressed competence as an essential component and the historical transformation of a creative domain as the highest mark of creativity. It also, the authors argued, made a useful framework for analyzing creative processes in individuals.[33]
The contrast between the terms "Big C" and "Little C" has been widely used. Kozbelt, Beghetto, and Runco use a little-c/Big-C model to review major theories of creativity. Margaret Boden distinguishes between h-creativity (historical) and p-creativity (personal).[34]
Ken Robinson[35] and Anna Craft focused on creativity in a general population, particularly with respect to education. Craft makes a similar distinction between "high" and "little c" creativity[36] and cites Robinson as referring to "high" and "democratic" creativity. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi defined creativity in terms of individuals judged to have made significant creative, perhaps domain-changing contributions.[37] Simonton analyzed the career trajectories of eminent creative people in order to map patterns and predictors of creative productivity.[38]
Theories of creativity (and empirical investigations of why some people are more creative than others) have focused on a variety of aspects. The dominant factors are usually identified as "the four P's", a framework first put forward by Mel Rhodes:[39]
In 2013, based on a sociocultural critique of the Four P model as individualistic, static, and decontextualized, Vlad Petre Glăveanu proposed a "five A's" model consisting of actor, action, artifact, audience, and affordance.[42] In this model, the actor is the person with attributes but also located within social networks; action is the process of creativity not only in internal cognitive terms but also external, bridging the gap between ideation and implementation; artifacts emphasize how creative products typically represent cumulative innovations over time rather than abrupt discontinuities; and "press/place" is divided into audience and affordance, which consider the interdependence of the creative individual with the social and material world, respectively. Although not supplanting the four Ps model in creativity research, the five As model has exerted influence over the direction of some creativity research,[43] and has been credited with bringing coherence to studies across a number of creative domains.[44]
There has been much empirical study in psychology and cognitive science of the processes through which creativity occurs. Interpretation of the results of these studies has led to several possible explanations of the sources and methods of creativity.
See main article: Incubation (psychology). "Incubation" is a temporary break from creative problem solving that can result in insight.[45] Empirical research has investigated whether, as the concept of "incubation" in Wallas's model implies, a period of interruption or rest from a problem may aid creative problem-solving. Early work proposed that creative solutions to problems arise mysteriously from the unconscious mind while the conscious mind is occupied on other tasks.[46] This hypothesis is discussed in Csikszentmihalyi's five-phase model of the creative process which describes incubation as a time when your unconscious takes over. This was supposed to allow for unique connections to be made without our consciousness trying to make logical order out of the problem.[47]
Ward[48] 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 a different hypothesis: Incubation aids creative problems in that it enables "forgetting" of misleading clues. The absence of incubation may lead the problem solver to become fixated on inappropriate strategies of solving the problem.[49]
J. P. Guilford[50] drew a distinction between convergent and divergent production (commonly renamed convergent and divergent thinking). Convergent thinking involves aiming for a single, correct, or best solution to a problem (e.g., "How can we get a crewed rocket to land on the moon safely and within budget?"). Divergent thinking, on the other hand, involves the creative generation of multiple answers to an open-ended prompt (e.g., "How can a chair be used?"). Divergent thinking is sometimes used as a synonym for creativity in psychology literature or is considered the necessary precursor to creativity.[51] However, as Runco points out, there is a clear distinction between creative thinking and divergent thinking.[52] Creative thinking focuses on the production, combination, and assessment of ideas to formulate something new and unique, while divergent thinking focuses on the act of conceiving of a variety of ideas that are not necessarily new or unique. Other researchers have occasionally used the terms flexible thinking or fluid intelligence, which are also roughly similar to (but not synonymous with) creativity.[53] While convergent and divergent thinking differ greatly in terms of approach to problem solving, it is believed that both are employed to some degree when solving most real-world problems.
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.[54] Some evidence shows that when people use their imagination to develop new ideas, those ideas are structured in predictable ways by the properties of existing categories and concepts.[55] Weisberg argued, by contrast, that creativity involves ordinary cognitive processes yielding extraordinary results.[56]
Helie and Sun[57] proposed a framework for understanding creativity in problem solving, namely the Explicit-Implicit Interaction (EII) theory of creativity. This theory attempts to provide a more unified explanation of relevant phenomena (in part by reinterpreting/integrating various fragmentary existing theories of incubation and insight).
The EII theory relies mainly on five basic principles:
A computational implementation of the theory was developed based on the CLARION cognitive architecture and used to simulate relevant human data. This work is an initial step in the development of process-based theories of creativity encompassing incubation, insight, and various other related phenomena.
See main article: Conceptual blending. In The Act of Creation, Arthur Koestler introduced the concept of bisociation – that creativity arises as a result of the intersection of two quite different frames of reference.[58] In the 1990s, various approaches in cognitive science that dealt with metaphor, analogy, and structure mapping converged, and a new integrative approach to the study of creativity in science, art, and humor emerged under the label conceptual blending.
Honing theory, developed principally by psychologist Liane Gabora, posits that creativity arises due to the self-organizing, self-mending nature of a worldview. The creative process is a way in which the individual hones (and re-hones) an integrated worldview. Honing theory places emphasis not only on the externally visible creative outcome but also on the internal cognitive restructuring and repair of the worldview brought about by the creative process and production.[59] When one is faced with a creatively demanding task, there is an interaction between one's conception of the task and one's worldview. The conception of the task changes through interaction with the worldview, and the worldview changes through interaction with the task. This interaction is reiterated until the task is complete, at which point the task is conceived of differently and the worldview is subtly or drastically transformed, following the natural tendency of a worldview to attempt to resolve dissonance and seek internal consistency amongst its components, whether they be ideas, attitudes, or bits of knowledge. Dissonance in a person's worldview is, in some cases, generated by viewing their peers' creative outputs, and so people pursue their own creative endeavors to restructure their worldviews and reduce dissonance. This shift in worldview and cognitive restructuring through creative acts has also been considered as a way to explain possible benefits of creativity on mental health. The theory also addresses challenges not addressed by other theories of creativity, such as the factors guiding restructuring and the evolution of creative works. [60]
A central feature of honing theory is the notion of a potential state.[61] Honing theory posits that creative thought proceeds not by searching through and randomly "mutating" predefined possibilities but by drawing upon associations that exist due to overlap in the distributed neural cell assemblies that participate in the encoding of experiences in memory. Midway through the creative process, one may have made associations between the current task and previous experiences but not yet disambiguated which aspects of those previous experiences are relevant to the current task. Thus, the creative idea may feel "half-baked.". At that point, it can be said to be in a potentiality state, because how it will actualize depends on the different internally or externally generated contexts it interacts with.
Honing theory is held to explain certain phenomena not dealt with by other theories of creativity—for example, how different works by the same creator exhibit a recognizable style or "voice" even in different creative outlets. This is not predicted by theories of creativity that emphasize chance processes or the accumulation of expertise, but it is predicted by honing theory, according to which personal style reflects the creator's uniquely structured worldview. Another example is the environmental stimulus for creativity. Creativity is commonly considered to be fostered by a supportive, nurturing, and trustworthy environment conducive to self-actualization. In line with this idea, Gabora posits that creativity is a product of culture and that our social interactions evolve our culture in way that promotes creativity.
See also: Subjunctive and Counterfactual thinking. In everyday thought, people often spontaneously imagine alternatives to reality when they think "if only...".[62] Their counterfactual thinking is viewed as an example of everyday creative processes.[63] It has been proposed that the creation of counterfactual alternatives to reality depends on similar cognitive processes to rational thought.[64]
Imaginative thought in everyday life can be categorized based on whether it involves perceptual/motor related mental imagery, novel combinatorial processing, or altered psychological states. This classification aids in understanding the neural foundations and practical implications of imagination. [65]
Creative thinking is a central aspect of everyday life, encompassing both controlled and undirected processes. This includes divergent thinking and stage models, highlighting the importance of extra- and meta-cognitive contributions to imaginative thought. [66]
Brain network dynamics play a crucial role in creative cognition. The default and executive control networks in the brain cooperate during creative tasks, suggesting a complex interaction between these networks in facilitating everyday imaginative thought. [67]
The term "dialectical theory of creativity" dates back to psychoanalyst Daniel Dervin[68] and was later developed into an interdisciplinary theory.[69] The dialectical theory of creativity starts with the ancient concept that creativity takes place in an interplay between order and chaos. Similar ideas can be found in neuroscience and psychology. Neurobiologically, it can be shown that the creative process takes place in a dynamic interplay between coherence and incoherence that leads to new and usable neuronal networks. Psychology shows how the dialectics of convergent and focused thinking with divergent and associative thinking leads to new ideas and products.[70]
Personality traits like the "Big Five" seem to be the creative process: emotional instability vs. stability, extraversion vs. introversion, openness vs. reserve, agreeableness vs. antagonism, and disinhibition vs. constraint.[71] The dialectical theory of creativity applies also to counseling and psychotherapy.[72]
Lin and Vartanian developed a neurobiological description of creative cognition.[73] This interdisciplinary framework integrates theoretical principles and empirical results from neuroeconomics, reinforcement learning, cognitive neuroscience, and neurotransmission research on the locus coeruleus system. It describes how decision-making processes studied by neuroeconomists as well as activity in the locus coeruleus system underlie creative cognition and the large-scale brain network dynamics associated with creativity.[74] It suggests that creativity is an optimization and utility-maximization problem that requires individuals to determine the optimal way to exploit and explore ideas (the multi-armed bandit problem). This utility maximization process is thought to be mediated by the locus coeruleus system,[75] and this creativity framework describes how tonic and phasic locus coeruleus activity work in conjunction to facilitate the exploiting and exploring of creative ideas. This framework not only explains previous empirical results but also makes novel and falsifiable predictions at different levels of analysis (ranging from neurobiological to cognitive and personality differences).
B.F. Skinner attributed creativity to accidental behaviors that are reinforced by the environment.[76] In behaviorism, creativity can be understood as novel or unusual behaviors that are reinforced if they produce a desired outcome.[77] Spontaneous behaviors by living creatures are thought to reflect past learned behaviors. In this way,[78] a behaviorist may say that prior learning caused novel behaviors to be reinforced many times over, and the individual has been shaped to produce increasingly novel behaviors.[79] A creative person, according to this definition, is someone who has been reinforced more often for novel behaviors than others. Behaviorists suggest that anyone can be creative, they just need to be reinforced to learn to produce novel behaviors.
Another theory about creative people is the investment theory of creativity. This approach suggests that many individual and environmental factors must exist in precise ways for extremely high levels of creativity opposed to average levels of creativity to result. In the investment sense, a person with their particular characteristics in their particular environment may see an opportunity to devote their time and energy into something that has been overlooked by others. The creative person develops an undervalued or under-recognized idea to the point that it is established as a new and creative idea. Just like in the financial world, some investments are worth the buy-in, while others are less productive and do not build to the extent that the investor expected. This investment theory of creativity asserts that creativity might rely to some extent on the right investment of effort being added to a field at the right time in the right way.
See main article: Computational creativity. Jürgen Schmidhuber's formal theory of creativity postulates that creativity, curiosity, and interestingness are by-products of a simple computational principle for measuring and optimizing learning progress.
Consider an agent able to manipulate its environment and thus its own sensory inputs. The agent can use a black box optimization method such as reinforcement learning to learn (through informed trial and error) sequences of actions that maximize the expected sum of its future reward signals. There are extrinsic reward signals for achieving externally given goals, such as finding food when hungry. But Schmidhuber's objective function to be maximized also includes an additional, intrinsic term to model "wow-effects". This non-standard term motivates purely creative behavior of the agent even when there are no external goals.
A wow-effect is formally defined as follows: As the agent is creating and predicting and encoding the continually growing history of actions and sensory inputs, it keeps improving the predictor or encoder, which can be implemented as an artificial neural network or some other machine learning device that can exploit regularities in the data to improve its performance over time. The improvements can be measured precisely, by computing the difference in computational costs (storage size, number of required synapses, errors, time) needed to encode new observations before and after learning. This difference depends on the encoder's present knowledge, which changes over time, but the theory formally takes this into account. The cost difference measures the strength of the present "wow-effect" due to sudden improvements in data compression or computational speed. It becomes an intrinsic reward signal for the action selector. The objective function thus motivates the action optimizer to create action sequences causing more wow-effects.
Irregular, random data (or noise) do not permit any wow-effects or learning progress, and thus are "boring" by nature (providing no reward). Already known and predictable regularities also are boring. Temporarily interesting are only the initially unknown, novel, regular patterns in both actions and observations. This motivates the agent to perform continual, open-ended, active, creative exploration.
Schmidhuber's work is highly influential in intrinsic motivation which has emerged as a research topic as part of the study of artificial intelligence and robotics.
According to Schmidhuber, his objective function explains the activities of scientists, artists, and comedians. For example, physicists are motivated to create experiments leading to observations that obey previously unpublished physical laws, permitting better data compression. Likewise, composers receive intrinsic reward for creating non-arbitrary melodies with unexpected but regular harmonies that permit wow-effects through data compression improvements. Similarly, a comedian gets intrinsic reward for "inventing a novel joke with an unexpected punch line, related to the beginning of the story in an initially unexpected but quickly learnable way that also allows for better compression of the perceived data."[80]
Schmidhuber augured that computer hardware advances would greatly scale up rudimentary artificial scientists and artists.[81] He used the theory to create low-complexity art[82] and an attractive human face.[83]
J. P. Guilford's group, which pioneered the modern psychometric study of creativity, constructed several performance-based tests to measure creativity in 1967, including asking participants to write original titles for a story with a given plot, asking participants to come up with unusual uses for everyday objects like bricks, and asking participants to generate a list of consequences of unexpected events, like the loss of gravity. Guilford was trying to create a model for intellect as a whole, but in doing so, he also created a model for creativity. Guilford made an important assumption which was needed for creativity research: that creativity was not an abstract concept. The idea that creativity was a category rather than a single concept enabled other researchers to look at creativity with a new perspective.
Additionally, Guilford hypothesized one of the first models for the components of creativity. He explained that creativity was a result of having three qualities: the ability to recognize problems, "fluency", and "flexibility." "Fluency" encompassed "ideational fluency," or the ability to rapidly produce a variety of ideas fulfilling stated requirements; "associational fluency", or the ability to generate a list of words associated with a given word; and "expressional fluency", or the ability to organize words into larger units like phrases, sentences and paragraphs. "Flexibility" encompassed both "spontaneous flexibility," or the general ability to be flexible, and "adaptive flexibility," or the ability to produces responses that are novel and high in quality.
This represents the base model which several researchers would alter to produce their new theories of creativity years later. Building on Guilford's work, tests were developed, sometimes called Divergent Thinking (DT) tests, which have been both supported[84] and criticized.[85] One example is the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking developed in 1966. They involved tasks of divergent thinking and other problem-solving skills, which were scored on four categories: "fluency", the total number of meaningful, and relevant ideas generated; "flexibility", the number of different categories of responses; "originality", the statistical rarity of the responses; and "elaboration", the amount of detail given.
Considerable progress has been made in the automated scoring of divergent thinking tests using a semantic approach. When compared to human raters, NLP techniques are reliable and valid for scoring originality. Computer programs were able to achieve a correlation to human graders of 0.60 and 0.72.
Semantic networks also devise originality scores that yield significant correlations with socio-personal measures.[86] A team of researchers led by James C. Kaufman and Mark A. Runco combined expertise in creativity research, natural language processing, computational linguistics, and statistical data analysis to devise a scalable system for computerized automated testing (the SparcIt Creativity Index Testing system). This system enabled automated scoring of DT tests that is reliable, objective, and scalable, thus addressing most of the issues of DT tests that had been found and reported. The resultant computer system was able to achieve a correlation to human graders of 0.73.[87]
Researchers have taken a social-personality approach by using personality traits such as independence of judgement, self-confidence, attraction to complexity, aesthetic orientation, and risk-taking as measures of personal creativity. Within the framework of the Big Five personality traits, a consistent few of these traits have emerged as being correlated to creativity.[88] Openness to experience is consistently related to a host of different assessments of creativity.[89] On the other Big Five traits, research has demonstrated subtle differences between different domains of creativity. Compared to non-artists, artists tend to have higher levels of openness to experience and lower levels of conscientiousness, while scientists are more open to experience, conscientious, and higher in the confidence-dominance facets of extraversion compared to non-scientists.[90]
Biographical methods use quantitative characteristics such as the number of publications, patents, or performances of a work can be credited to a person. While this method was originally developed for highly creative personalities, today it is also available as self-report questionnaires supplemented with frequent, less outstanding creative behaviors such as writing a short story or creating your own recipes. The self-report questionnaire most frequently used in research is the Creative Achievement Questionnaire,[91] a self-report test that measures creative achievement across ten domains, which described in 2005 and shown to be reliable when compared to other measures of creativity and to independent evaluation of creative output.[92]
The potential relationship between creativity and intelligence has been of interest since the last half of the twentieth century, when many influential studies focused not only on creativity but also on intelligence. This joint focus highlights both the theoretical and practical importance of the relationship: researchers are interested not only if the constructs are related, but also how and why.[93]
There are multiple theories accounting for their relationship, with the three main theories. Threshold theory states that intelligence is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for creativity, and that there is a moderate positive relationship between creativity and intelligence until IQ ~120.[94] [95] Certification theory states that creativity is not intrinsically related to intelligence. Instead, individuals are required to meet the requisite level of intelligence in order to gain a certain level of education or work, which then in turn offers the opportunity to be creative. In this theory, displays of creativity are moderated by intelligence.[96] Interference theory states, in contrast, that extremely high intelligence might interfere with creative ability.[97]
Sternberg and O'Hara proposed a different framework of five possible relationships between creativity and intelligence: that creativity was a subset of intelligence; that intelligence was a subset of creativity; that the two constructs overlapped; that they were both part of the same construct (coincident sets); or that they were distinct constructs (disjoint sets).[98]
A number of researchers include creativity, either explicitly or implicitly, as a key component of intelligence, for example:
In this relationship model, intelligence is a key component in the development of creativity, for example:
This possible relationship concerns creativity and intelligence as distinct, but intersecting constructs, for example:
Under this view, researchers posit that there are no differences in the mechanisms underlying creativity between those used in normal problem solving, and in normal problem solving, there is no need for creativity. Thus, creativity and intelligence (problem solving) are the same thing. Perkins referred to this[113] as the "nothing-special" view.
In this view, creativity and intelligence are completely different, unrelated constructs.
Some theories suggest that creativity may be particularly susceptible to affective influence. The term "affect" in this context refers to liking or disliking key aspects of the subject in question. This work largely follows from findings in psychology regarding the ways in which affective states are involved in human judgment and decision-making.[114]
According to Alice Isen, positive affect has three primary effects on cognitive activity. First, it makes additional cognitive material available for processing, increasing the number of cognitive elements available for association. Second, it leads to defocused attention and a more complex cognitive context, increasing the breadth of those elements that are treated as relevant to the problem. Third, it increases cognitive flexibility, increasing the probability that diverse cognitive elements will in fact become associated. Together, these processes lead positive affect to improve creativity.[115]
Barbara 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.[116]
According to these researchers, positive emotions increase the number of cognitive elements available for association (attention scope) and the number of elements that are relevant to the problem (cognitive scope). Day-by-day psychological experiences including emotions, perceptions, and motivation significantly impact creative performance. Creativity is higher when emotions and perceptions are more positive and when intrinsic motivation is stronger.[117]
Some meta-analyses, such as Baas et al. (2008) of 66 studies about creativity and affect support the link between creativity and positive affect.[118] [119]
See main article: Creativity and mental health. 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).[120] However, different artists have described mental illness as having both positive and negative effects on their work. In general, people who have worked in the arts industry throughout history have faced many environmental factors that are associated with and can sometimes influence mental illness—things such as poverty, persecution, social alienation, psychological trauma, substance abuse, and high stress.[121]
A study by psychologist J. Philippe Rushton found creativity to correlate with intelligence and psychoticism.[122] Another study found creativity to be greater in people with schizotypal personality disorder than in people with either schizophrenia or those without mental health conditions.[123] [124] [125] While divergent thinking was associated with activation of both sides of the prefrontal cortex, schizotypal individuals were found to have much greater activation of their right prefrontal cortex specifically.[126] That study hypothesized that such individuals are better at accessing both hemispheres, allowing them to make novel associations at a faster rate. Consistent with this hypothesis, ambidexterity is also more common in people with schizotypal personality disorder and schizophrenia. Three studies by Mark Batey and Adrian Furnham demonstrated the relationships between schizotypal personality disorder and hypomanic personality[127] and several different measures of creativity.
A study of 300,000 persons with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or unipolar depression, and their relatives, found overrepresentation in creative professions for those with bipolar disorder as well as for undiagnosed siblings of those with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. There was no association for those with unipolar depression or their relatives.[128]
Another study involving more than one million people, conducted by Swedish researchers at the Karolinska Institute, reported a number of correlations between creative occupations and mental illnesses. Writers had a higher risk of anxiety and bipolar disorders, schizophrenia, unipolar depression, and substance abuse, and were almost twice as likely as the general population to kill themselves. Dancers and photographers were also more likely to have bipolar disorder.[129] Those in the creative professions were no more likely to have psychiatric disorders than other people, although they were more likely to have a close relative with a disorder, including anorexia and, to some extent, autism, the Journal of Psychiatric Research reported.
Nancy Andreasen was one of the first researchers to carry out a large-scale study on creativity and whether mental illnesses have an impact on someone's ability to be creative. She expected to find a link between creativity and schizophrenia but her research sample (the book authors she pooled) had no history of schizophrenia. Her findings instead showed that 80% of the creative group previously had some form of mental illness episode in their lifetime.[130] When she performed follow up studies over a 15-year period, she found that 43% of the authors had bipolar disorder, compared to the 1% of the general public.
In 1989 another study, by Kay Redfield Jamison, reaffirmed those statistics by having 38% of her sample of authors having a history of mood disorders. Anthony Storr, a prominent psychiatrist, remarked:
People diagnosed with bipolar disorder report themselves as having a larger range of emotional understanding, heightened states of perception, and an ability to connect better with those in the world around them.[131] Other reported traits include higher rates of productivity, higher senses of self-awareness, and a greater understanding of empathy. Those who have bipolar disorder also understand their own sense of heightened creativity and ability to get immense amounts of tasks done all at once. In one study, of 219 participants (aged 19 to 63) diagnosed with bipolar disorder, 82% of them reported having elevated feelings of creativity during the hypomanic swings.[132]
A study done by Shapiro and Weisberg also showed a positive correlation between the manic upswings of the cycles of bipolar disorder and the ability for an individual to be more creative.[133] The data showed, however, that it was not the depressive swing that brings forth dark creative spurts, but the act of climbing out of the depressive episode that sparks creativity. The reason behind this spur of creative genius could come from the type of self-image that the person has during a time of hypomania. A hypomanic person may feel a bolstered sense of self-confidence, creative confidence, and sense of individualism.
believes that the creativity a person diagnosed with bipolar disorder feels comes as a form of "stress management".[134] In the realm of music, one might be expressing one's stress or pains through the pieces one writes in order to better understand those same feelings. Famous authors and musicians, along with some actors, would often attribute their wild enthusiasm to something like a hypomanic state.[135] The artistic side of society has been notorious for behaviors that are seen as maladapted to societal norms. Symptoms of bipolar disorder match up with behaviors in high-profile creative personalities such as alcohol addiction; drug abuse including stimulants, depressants, hallucinogens and dissociatives, opioids, inhalants, and cannabis; difficulties in holding regular occupations; interpersonal problems; legal issues; and a high risk of suicide.
Weisberg believes that the state of mania sets "free the powers of a thinker". He implies that not only has the person become more creative, but they have fundamentally changed the kind of thoughts they produce.[136] In a study of poets, who seem to have especially high percentages of bipolar authors, over a period of three years those poets would have cycles of really creative and powerful works of poetry. The timelines over the three-year study looked at the poets' personal journals and their clinical records and found that the timelines between their most powerful poems matched that of their upswings in bipolar disorder.
Creativity can be expressed in a number of different forms, depending on unique people and environments. Theorists have suggested a number of different models of the creative person. However, the creativity profiling approach must take into account the tension between predicting the creative profile of an individual, as characterized by the psychometric approach, and the evidence that team creativity is founded on diversity and difference.[137]
From a personality-traits perspective, there are a number of traits that are associated with creativity in people. Creative people tend to be more open to new experiences, are more self-confident, are more ambitious, self-accepting, impulsive, driven, dominant, and hostile, compared to people with less creativity.
One characteristic of creative people, as measured by some psychologists, is what is called divergent production—the ability of a person to generate a diverse assortment of, yet an appropriate amount of, responses to a given situation.[138] One way to measure divergent production is by administering the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking assess the diversity, quantity, and appropriateness of participants' responses to a variety of open-ended questions. Some researchers also emphasize how creative people are better at balancing between divergent and convergent production, which depends on an individual's innate preference or ability to explore and exploit ideas.
Other researchers of creativity see what distinguishes creative people as a cognitive process of dedication to problem-solving and developing expertise in the field of their creative expression. Hardworking people study the work of people before them in their milieu, become experts in their fields, and then have the ability to add to and build upon previous information in innovative and creative ways. In a study of projects by design students, students who had more knowledge on their subject on average had greater creativity within their projects.[139]
The aspect of motivation in a person's personality may also predict their creativity levels. Motivation stems from two different sources: intrinsic and extrinsic. Intrinsic motivation is an internal drive within a person to participate or invest as a result of personal interest, desires, hopes, goals, etc. Extrinsic motivation is a drive from outside a person and might take the form of payment, rewards, fame, approval from others, etc. Although extrinsic motivation and intrinsic motivation can both increase creativity in certain cases, strictly extrinsic motivation often impedes creativity in people.[140]
In studying exceptionally creative people in history, some common traits in lifestyle and environment are often found. Creative people usually had supportive, but rigid and non-nurturing, parents. Most had an interest in their field at an early age, and most had a highly supportive and skilled mentor in their field of interest. Often the field they chose was relatively uncharted, allowing for their creativity to be expressed more. Most exceptionally creative people devoted almost all of their time and energy into their craft, and had a creative breakthrough of fame. Their lives were marked with extreme dedication and a cycle of hard-work and breakthroughs as a result of their determination.
The neuroscience of creativity looks at the operation of the brain during creative behavior. One article writes that "creative innovation might require coactivation and communication between regions of the brain that ordinarily are not strongly connected."[141] Highly creative people who excel at creative innovation tend to differ from others in three ways: first, they have a high level of specialized knowledge; second, they are capable of divergent thinking mediated by the frontal lobe; and third, they are able to modulate neurotransmitters such as norepinephrine in their frontal lobe. Thus, the frontal lobe appears to be the part of the cortex that is most important for creativity.
A 2015 study on creativity found that it involves the interaction of multiple neural networks, including those that support associative thinking, along with other default mode network functions.[142] In 2018, some experiments showed that when the brain suppresses obvious or "known" solutions, the outcome is solutions that are more creative. This suppression is mediated by alpha oscillations in the right temporal lobe.[143]
Creativity involves the forming of associative elements into new combinations that are useful or meet some requirement. Sleep aids this process.[144] [145] REM rather than NREM sleep appears to be responsible.[146] [147] This may be due to changes in cholinergic and noradrenergic neuromodulation that occurs during REM sleep. During this period of sleep, high levels of acetylcholine in the hippocampus suppress feedback from the hippocampus to the neocortex, and lower levels of acetylcholine and norepinephrine in the neocortex encourage the spread of associational activity within neocortical areas without control from the hippocampus.[148] This is in contrast to waking consciousness, in which higher levels of norepinephrine and acetylcholine inhibit recurrent connections in the neocortex. REM sleep may aid creativity by allowing "neocortical structures to reorganize associative hierarchies, in which information from the hippocampus would be reinterpreted in relation to previous semantic representations or nodes."
Vandervert[149] 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)[150] are adaptively modeled for increased efficiency by the cerebellum.[151] [152] The cerebellum (consisting of 100 billion neurons, which is more than the entirety of the rest of the brain)[153] also adaptively models all bodily movement for efficiency. The cerebellum's adaptive models of working memory processing are then fed back to especially frontal lobe working memory control processes[154] where creative and innovative thoughts arise. (Apparently, creative insight or the "aha" experience is then triggered in the temporal lobe.)[155]
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).[156] 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, Vandervert's approach helps explain creativity and innovation in sports, art, music, the design of video games, technology, mathematics, the child prodigy, and thought in general.
Vandervert argues that when a person is confronted with a challenging new situation, visual-spatial working memory and speech-related working memory are decomposed and re-composed (fractionated) by the cerebellum and then blended in the cerebral cortex in an attempt to deal with the new situation. With repeated attempts to deal with challenging situations, the cerebro-cerebellar blending process continues to optimize the efficiency of how working memory deals with the situation or problem.[157] He also argues that this is the same process (only involving visual-spatial working memory and pre-language vocalization) that led to the evolution of language in humans. Vandervert and Vandervert-Weathers have pointed out that this blending process, because it continuously optimizes efficiencies, constantly improves prototyping attempts toward the invention or innovation of new ideas, music, art, or technology.[158] Prototyping, they argue, not only produces new products, it trains the cerebro-cerebellar pathways involved to become more efficient at prototyping itself. Further, Vandervert and Vandervert-Weathers believe that this repetitive "mental prototyping" or mental rehearsal involving the cerebellum and the cerebral cortex explains the success of the self-driven, individualized patterning of repetitions initiated by the teaching methods of the Khan Academy.
The model proposed by Vandervert has, however, received incisive critique from several authors.
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 may be 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.[159]
In 2018, Lin and Vartanian proposed a neuroeconomic framework that precisely describes norepinephrine's role in creativity and modulating large-scale brain networks associated with creativity. This framework describes how neural activity in different brain regions and networks like the default mode network track utility or subjective value of ideas.
Economic approaches to creativity have focused on three aspects – the impact of creativity on economic growth, methods of modeling markets for creativity, and the maximization of economic creativity (innovation).[160] [161]
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. Some economists (such as Paul Romer) view creativity 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.
Mark A. Runco and Daniel Rubenson have tried to describe a "psychoeconomic" model of creativity.[162] In such a model, creativity is the product of endowments and active investments in creativity; the costs and benefits of bringing creative activity to market determine the supply of creativity. Such an approach has been criticized for its view of creativity consumption as always having positive utility, and for the way it analyzes the value of future innovations.[163]
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.[164]
Creativity research for most of the twentieth century was dominated by psychology and business studies, with little work done in sociology. Since the turn of the millennium, there has been more attention paid by sociological researchers,[165] [166] but it has yet to establish itself as a specific research field, with reviews of sociological research into creativity a rarity in high impact literature.[167]
While psychology has tended to focus on the individual as the locus of creativity, sociological research is directed more at the structures and context within which creative activity takes place, primarily based in sociology of culture, which finds its roots in the works of Marx, Durkheim, and Weber. This has meant a focus on the cultural and creative industries as sociological phenomena. Such research has covered a variety of areas, including the economics and production of culture, the role of creative industries in development, and the rise of the "creative class".[168]
From an evolutionary perspective, creativity may be a result of the outcome of years of generating ideas. As ideas are continuously generated, the need to evolve produces a need for new ideas and developments. As a result, people have been creating and developing new, innovative, and creative ideas to build our progress as a society.[169]
Some see the conventional system of schooling as stifling of creativity, and they attempt (particularly in the preschool/kindergarten and early school years) to provide a creativity-friendly, rich, imagination-fostering environment for young children.[170] [171] [172] Researchers have seen this as important because technology is advancing our society at an unprecedented rate and creative problem solving will be needed to cope with these challenges as they arise. In addition to helping with problem solving, creativity also helps students identify problems where others have failed to do so.[173] The Waldorf School is an example of an education program that promotes creative thought.
Promoting intrinsic motivation and problem solving are two areas where educators can foster creativity in students. Students are more creative when they see a task as intrinsically motivating, valued for its own sake.[174] [175] To promote creative thinking, educators need to identify what motivates their students and to structure teaching around it. Providing students with a choice of activities to complete allows them to become more intrinsically motivated and therefore creative in completing the tasks.
Teaching students to solve problems that do not have well-defined answers is another way to foster their creativity. This is accomplished by allowing students to explore problems and redefine them, possibly drawing on knowledge that at first may seem unrelated to the problem in order to solve it. In adults, mentoring individuals is another way to foster their creativity.[176] However, the benefits of mentoring creativity apply only to creative contributions considered great in a given field, not to everyday creative expression.[177]
Musical creativity is a gateway to the flow state, which is conducive to spontaneity, improvisation, and creativity. Studies show that it is beneficial to emphasize students' creative side and integrate more creativity into their curriculums, with a notable strategy being through music.[178] One reason for this is that students are able to express themselves through musical improvisation in a way that taps into higher order brain regions while connecting with their peers, allowing them to go beyond typical pattern generation.[179] In this sense, improvisation is a form of self-expression that can generate connectivity amongst peers and surpass the age-old rudimentary aspects of school.
In the Scottish education system, creativity is identified as a core skillset for learning, life, and work and is defined as "a process which generates ideas that have value to the individual. It involves looking at familiar things with a fresh eye, examining problems with an open mind, making connections, learning from mistakes, and using imagination to explore new possibilities."[180] The need to develop a shared language and understanding of creativity and its role across every aspect of learning, teaching, and continuous improvement was identified as a necessary aim[181] and a set of four skills is used to allow educators to discuss and develop creativity skills across all subjects and sectors of education – curiosity, open-mindedness, imagination, and problem solving.[182] Distinctions are made between creative learning (when learners are using their creativity skills), creative teaching (when educators are using their creativity skills), and creative change (when creativity skills are applied to planning and improvement). Scotland's national Creative Learning Plan[183] supports the development of creativity skills in all learners and of educators' expertise in developing creativity skills. A range of resources have been created to support and assess this, including a national review of creativity across learning by Her Majesty's Inspectorate for Education.
Recognizes that creativity ability is crucial for national security, social development, and improving people's benefits. Measures have been proposed to enhance creative ability in the country. [184]
Emphasizes creativity as a transversal theme important for the development of basic skills and has declared 2009 the 'Year of Creativity and Innovation'. Countries like France, Germany, Italy, and Spain have incorporated creativity into their education and economic policies. [185]
Various research studies set out to establish that organizational effectiveness depends on the creativity of the workforce to a large extent. For any given organization, measures of effectiveness vary, depending upon its mission, environmental context, nature of work, the product or service it produces, and customer demands. Thus, the first step in evaluating organizational effectiveness is to understand the organization itself – how it functions, how it is structured, and what it emphasizes.
Similarly, social psychologists, organizational scientists, and management scientists (who research factors that influence creativity and innovation in teams and organizations) have developed integrative theoretical models that emphasize the roles of team composition, team processes, and organizational culture. These theoretical models also emphasize the mutually reinforcing relationships between them in promoting innovation.[186] [187] [188] [189]
Research studies of the knowledge economy may be classified into three levels: macro, meso, and micro. Macro studies are at a societal or transnational dimension. Meso studies focus on organizations. Micro investigations center on the minutiae workings of workers. There is also an interdisciplinary dimension such as research from businesses, economics, education, human resource management,[190] knowledge and organizational management, sociology, psychology, knowledge economy-related sectors – especially software, and advertising.
Diversity of team members' backgrounds and knowledge can increase team creativity by expanding the collection of unique information that is available to the team and by introducing different perspectives that can integrate in novel ways. However, under some conditions, diversity can also decrease team creativity by making it more difficult for team members to communicate about ideas and causing interpersonal conflicts between those with different perspectives.[191] Thus, the potential advantages of diversity must be supported by appropriate team processes and organizational cultures in order to enhance creativity.[192] [193]
Team communication norms, such as respecting others' expertise, paying attention to others' ideas, expecting information sharing, tolerating disagreements, negotiating, remaining open to others' ideas, learning from others, and building on each other's ideas, increase team creativity by facilitating the social processes involved with brainstorming and problem solving. Through these processes, team members can access their collective pool of knowledge, reach shared understandings, identify new ways of understanding problems or tasks, and make new connections between ideas. Engaging in these social processes also promotes positive team affect, which facilitates collective creativity.
Supportive and motivational environments that create psychological safety by encouraging risk taking and tolerating mistakes increase team creativity as well. Organizations in which help-seeking, help giving, and collaboration are rewarded promote innovation by providing opportunities and contexts in which team processes that lead to collective creativity can occur.[194] Additionally, leadership styles that downplay status hierarchies or power differences within an organization and empower people to speak up about their ideas or opinions also help to create cultures that are conducive to creativity.
See main article: Creative limitation.
There is a long-standing debate on how material constraints (e.g., lack of money, materials, or equipment) affect creativity. In psychological and managerial research, two competing views in this regard prevail. In one view, scholars propose a negative effect of material constraints on innovation and claim that material constraints starve creativity.[195] Proponents argue that adequate material resources are needed to engage in creative activities like experimenting with new solutions and idea exploration. In an opposing view, scholars assert that people tend to stick to established routines or solutions as long as they are not forced to deviate from them by constraints. For example, material constraints facilitated the development of jet engines in World War II.[196]
To reconcile these competing views, contingency models were proposed.[197] [198] [199] The rationale behind these models is that certain contingency factors (e.g., creativity climate or creativity relevant skills) influence the relationship between constraints and creativity. These contingency factors reflect the need for higher levels of motivation and skills when working on creative tasks under constraints. Depending on these contingency factors, there is either a positive or negative relationship between constraints and creativity.
See main article: Creativity techniques.
Several researchers have proposed methods of increasing a person's creativity. Such ideas range from the psychological-cognitive, such as the Osborn-Parnes Creative Problem Solving Process, Synectics, science-based creative thinking, Purdue Creative Thinking Program, and Edward de Bono's lateral thinking; to the highly structured, such as TRIZ (the Theory of Inventive Problem-Solving) and its variant Algorithm of Inventive Problem Solving (developed by the Russian scientist Genrich Altshuller), and Computer-Aided morphological analysis.
An empirical synthesis of which methods work best in enhancing creativity was published by Haase et al.[200] Summarising the results of 84 studies, the authors found that complex training courses, meditation, and cultural exposure were most effective in enhancing creativity, while the use of cognitive manipulation drugs was noneffective.
Experiments suggest the need for closure of task participants, whether as a reflection of personality or induced (through time pressure), negatively impacts creativity.[201] Accordingly, it has been suggested that reading fiction, which can reduce the cognitive need for closure, may help to encourage creativity.[202]
So-called malevolent creativity is the "dark side" of creativity.[203] [204] This type of creativity is not typically accepted within society and is defined by the intention to cause harm to others through original and innovative means. While it is often associated with criminal behavior, it can also be observed in ordinary day-to-day life as lying, cheating, and betrayal.[205]
Malevolent creativity should be distinguished from negative creativity in that negative creativity may unintentionally cause harm to others, whereas malevolent creativity is explicitly malevolently motivated.
Malevolent creativity is a key contributor to crime and in its most destructive form can even manifest as terrorism. As creativity requires deviating from the conventional, there is a permanent tension between being creative and going too far—in some cases to the point of breaking the law. Aggression is a key predictor of malevolent creativity, and increased levels of aggression correlate with a higher likelihood of committing crime.[206]
Although everyone shows some levels of malevolent creativity under certain conditions, those that have a higher propensity towards it have increased tendencies to deceive and manipulate others to their own gain. While malevolent creativity appears to dramatically increase when an individual is placed under unfair conditions, personality, particularly aggressiveness, is also a key predictor in anticipating levels of malevolent thinking. Researchers Harris and Reiter-Palmon investigated the role of aggression in levels of malevolent creativity, in particular levels of implicit aggression and the tendency to employ aggressive actions in response to problem solving. The personality traits of physical aggression, conscientiousness, emotional intelligence, and implicit aggression all seem to be related with malevolent creativity. Harris and Reiter-Palmon's research showed that when subjects were presented with a problem that designed to trigger malevolent creativity, participants high in implicit aggression and low in premeditation expressed the largest number of malevolently themed solutions. When presented with the more benign problem designed to trigger prosocial motives of helping others and cooperating, those high in implicit aggression, even if they were high in impulsiveness, were far less destructive in their imagined solutions. The researchers concluded premeditation, more than implicit aggression, controlled an individual's expression of malevolent creativity.[207]
The current measure for malevolent creativity is the 13-item Malevolent Creativity Behaviour Scale (MCBS).