Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DEFINITION
Arthur J. Cropley
University of Hamburg
Summary
Although the modern definition of creativity has moved away from esthetics and discovery
towards emphasis on meeting competition, the idea of novelty is central (although not
necessarily sufficient). Also necessary are relevance and effectiveness, as well as ethicality.
Novelty is understood in different ways, and this leads to a distinction between creativity in
the sublime and in the everyday sense. Although both creativity and intelligence require
knowledge and effort, they can be distinguished from each other, and much the same can be
said about creativity and problem solving. Creativity can also be defined as a social
phenomenon that is facilitated by some social factors, inhibited by others. One important
social setting is the place of work, where an interaction between the person and the
environment affects the process of innovation. Focusing on the individual person, creativity
is defined as an aspect of thinking, as a personality constellation, and as an interaction
between thinking, personal properties and motivation. This interaction involves a number of
paradoxes, in that apparently contradictory elements have to coexist for creativity to emerge.
Creativity is not confined to fine art, literature, performing arts, music, and similar
artistic domains, but also occurs in fields such as business, manufacturing, technology, medicine,
administration, education, even defense. Its products include tangible objects such as artworks,
books or music, as well as buildings, machines, or devices, but go beyond these to encompass
ideas, processes, services, or systems of operation, production and delivery. Creativity involves
doing these things in ways that are, on the one hand, novel and on the other, effective in achieving
a desired result. The result may range from abstract actions such as communication of a feeling,
new understandings of experience or existence, to concrete results such as the making of works of
great beauty or imagination, the design and construction of improved or novel devices, machines,
In relevant discussions, the term “creativity” is used in three ways: it refers to a set of
processes (e.g., “creative” thinking), a cluster of personal characteristic of people (e.g., the
“creative” personality), and to results (e.g., a “creative” product). Thus, creativity is treated as
both a cause (e.g., creative processes yield products; peoples’ creativity causes them to behave
in a certain way) and also as an effect or result (a certain kind of product resulting from person
and process). This is the “classic” 3 Ps approach (person, process and product), which was
soon expanded to incorporate a fourth P—“press” (i.e., the pressure of the environment, which
can either facilitate or block creativity). However, discussions in the modern creativity era,
which started in 1950 with the publication of J. P. Guilford’s 1949 presidential address to the
American Psychological Association, were strongly shaped by his thinking (psychometrics and
personality) and that of educators such as Paul Torrance. More conceptual discussions of
creativity came to be dominated by humanistic writers such as Carl Rogers, Abraham Maslow,
3
or Rollo May, who saw its value as lying in its perceived beneficial effects on personal growth,
self-actualization, and similar aspects of individual well-being. The result was that discussions
measuring and fostering creative thinking in the classroom, and the purpose of fostering
In recent years, however, discussions have once again given equal emphasis to
products, including not only artworks of all kinds (fine art, literature, dance, theater, music)
but also machines, structures, methods and processes in areas such as engineering, production,
marketing, finance, health care, agriculture, defense, and even anti-terrorism and law
enforcement. Useful practical products—especially ones that can successfully be used to solve
particularly interested in. This interest has been fuelled by the perceived role of creativity in
promoting health and welfare, social justice, economic advancement, social stability, and peace
and security. This way of looking at creative products has been referred to as involving
“functional” creativity, and can be contrasted with the earlier emphasis on aesthetic creativity.
4
Interest in creativity is not confined to modern times. To take one example from the
ancient world, in his Ion, Plato discussed the contribution of creative people to society. Over the
centuries, painters, sculptors, poets, writers and other workers in the creative arts have frequently
discussed esthetic creativity. It has often been looked at in a spiritual way, being seen as the only
uniquely “human” characteristic, one that defines an area of experience where, for instance,
microelectronics cannot go. In this view, creative thinking is a bastion of human dignity in an age
where machines, especially computers, seem to be taking over routine skilled activities and
everyday thinking. It is also regarded as a force of nature that lies behind all growth and
development. An extension of this point of view is to see creativity as an element of mental health:
Through its perceived connection with flexibility, openness, courage and the like, properties of
personality that are themselves seen as both prerequisites for and results of a healthy personality,
creativity is thought to foster positive adjustment to life, while there is also evidence of a link
In such discussions creativity had strong esthetic connotations. However, the idea of
practically useful creativity also has a long history. The Chinese Emperor, Han Wudi, who reigned
until 87BCE, was intensely interested in finding innovative thinkers and giving them high rank in
the civil service, and reformed the method of selection of mandarins to achieve this. Both Francis
Bacon and René Descartes, two of the founders of modern science, saw scientific creativity as
involving the harnessing of the forces of nature for the betterment of the human condition.
Immediately after the “Sputnik shock” in 1957, emphasis in the USA and subsequently in other
western European countries shifted more strongly to areas like physical sciences and engineering,
and creativity began to be seen as a way of keeping up with the competition (especially with the
then Soviet Union in the space race). In more recent years, discussions of creativity have become
prominent in business, again with an emphasis on beating the competition, this time for markets
and market shares. Research in this domain focused at first on invention of new products and
production processes, for instance through studies of patent-holders. More recently there has
and the management of innovation, with research focusing on productivity, effectiveness and the
like. There has also recently been considerable discussion of the fostering of creativity in areas
where it would scarcely have been regarded as relevant 25 years ago—for instance in technology
education.
both “creative” teaching and also “creative” learning strategies. These strategies facilitate learning
and are simultaneously a result of appropriate teaching and learning. There is substantial evidence
morality, esthetics
6
Shortly after the Second World War researchers in esthetics concluded that the only constant
factor in virtually all discussions of creativity is novelty. Novelty was later defined in a more
psychological way as the achieving of "surprise" in the beholder. Subsequent discussions made
the important point that surprisingness alone is not a sufficient condition for creativity. It is
lack of discipline, blind rejection of what already exists and simply letting oneself go. These
properties may be observed in many genuinely creative people, and thus confused with
creativity, but they are not actually part of it. It is also possible to distinguish what can be
called “quasi-creativity.” This has many of the elements of genuine creativitysuch as a high
level of fantasybut the connection with reality is tenuous. An example would be the
“creativity” of daydreams.
Genuine creativity requires a further element over and above mere novelty: A
product or response must be relevant to the issue at stake and must offer some kind of genuine
solution, i.e. it must be effective. Otherwise every farfetched, outrageous or preposterous idea
Thus, creativity is nowadays widely defined as the production of relevant and effective novelty.
What is meant by "effective" may also differ between, let us say, fine art and business. In the
former case, criteria such as esthetic pleasingness play an important role, in the latter perhaps
increased profit or avoidance of layoffs or even simply survival of a company. These two
aspects of effectiveness need not contradict each other, although they are often seen as
mutually exclusive: For instance, it is possible for a book to be commercially successful and at
The term "creativity" has highly positive connotations. It is difficult to think of the
effective and relevant novelty of new weapons of mass destruction as creative, even though
they might contain all the necessary elements discussed above. Indeed, revolutionary new ideas
can have dramatic consequences for life, human and otherwise, not necessarily of a benign kind
but conceivably malignant. Thus, in addition to being effective and relevant, creativity has an
ethical element. Nowadays this aspect has become particularly urgent in science (see for
instance discussions of cloning human beings), in business, commerce and manufacturing, and
in engineering, where the need for environmental responsibility is increasingly being stressed.
In recent writings, a number of authors have argued that creativity can only be defined in
particular areas such as fine arts or science. In these discussions, the nature of the product is
often emphasized. Some researchers emphasize concrete products, such as a work of art, a
abstract products such as new ways of thinking about an area or the production of new ways
of symbolizing it.
The role of a physical product is particularly obvious in fine art or performing arts
(where specific works or performances are judged by specialized critics as well as interested
members of the public), science (where peer judgement is of great importance), engineering,
architecture and the like (where creative work usually leads to concrete products that are
sometimes the source of public and professional controversy), or in business, where a concrete
philosophy, novel ideas or symbol systems may well be the usual result of creativity. In this
chapter novel "products" will be understood in both senses: physical products on the one hand,
8
new ways of symbolizing an area, on the other. The two kinds of product are possible in all
fields of creativity, and both may be identifiable in more or less all creative achievements,
concrete objects being more prominent or dominant in some situations, symbol systems in
others.
(for instance in science), ability to use special tools (e.g. sculpture), mastery of instruments
(e.g. music) or skill in specific techniques (e.g. creative writing) are important. In fact,
knowledge, special skills and techniques, and similar factors play a role in all fields of
creativity. The relative importance of particular factors is greater in some domains than in
example. The specific contents of these elements also vary according to the particular field or
activity in question: the specific knowledge required in designing and building bridges may not
be very relevant for creative research in, let us say, botany, but both require a knowledge base.
Both mathematical creativity and creative writing require mastery of a set of abstract symbols
for representing ideas, although the two symbol systems may be quite different. Thus, there is
Creativity obviously involves something new and different. However, this raises the question
for whom a product, process or idea should be new: for all of human history, for the society or
the era of the creator, or for the creator alone? Requiring that products be new in all human
history would mean that a person would not be regarded as creative if someone else
somewhere else had had the same idea at some time or other, even though the first person
knew nothing of this. On the other hand, defining creativity in terms of the point of view of the
9
person in question only would mean that total ignorance would guarantee creativity, since
children as being highly creative, despite the fact that the products of their "creative" efforts
are often crude, error laden, stereotyped or banal. However, the word "creativity" is also used
Shakespeare. In other words, "creativity" has at least two meanings. The first of these is
production of products that are novel in the sense that they have only recently come into
existence, regardless of relevance and effectivenesssuch as is almost always the case with a
child's drawing on what was until a few minutes before a blank piece of paper. This form of
creativity can be contrasted with production of great works that are novel in the sense that
they are widely hailed as enlarging human perspectives in some way not previously seen in all
history. The latter involves "sublime" creativity, the former "ordinary" creativity.
Even in the case of sublime creativity it is possible to distinguish between two ways
application of the already known) and "primary" creativity (development of new principles).
Other authors have distinguished between "minor" creativity (extending the known) and
"major" creativity (going beyond the known). The highest form of creativity, which may lead to
creativity: "Expressive spontaneity" requires only the free production of ideas, without regard
to their effectiveness or relevance. Expressive spontaneity has a role in some creativity training
procedures such as brainstorming, and may well be helpful in the production of novelty, but
10
may often lead to pseudo or quasicreativity and is not sufficient by itself for sublime creativity.
"Technical creativity" requires unusually high levels of technical skill, for instance with words
creative activities (such as painting or playing music), technical skill is not sufficient as a
universal definition of creativity. "Inventive creativity" involves applying the already known in
new ways, "innovative creativity" requires expanding known principles, while "emergent
creativity" encompasses the development of new principles. Although some children produce
"sublime" creativity, this is not the general rule. However, many children show expressive
spontaneity, despite lack of knowledge of a field or absence of skill with tools or special
techniques. In this sense such children can be said to display creativity, but only at a humble
level.
The distinction among levels and kinds of creativity can also be applied to
discussions of creativity in adults. About 25 years ago the idea of creativity in the person who
will never achieve anything creative was introduced into the discussion. More recently, there
has been a considerable amount of research on "everyday" creativity. Although they may not
produce innovative or emergent creativity, a high proportion of adults engage in the production
of (at least for them) new ideas or products, for instance in the course of "creative" hobbies.
Although early studies of creativity supported the view that it frequently results from sudden
studies, many acknowledged creators have described the way in which their "inventive",
"innovative" or "emergent" creativity appeared without effort on their part: The mathematician
Poincaré, for instance, reported that he received his novel equations in a dream, while A. E.
Houseman described how the lines of his poems simply appeared in his head. Mozart reported
that he never revised his work, but wrote down complete music that occurred to him in its final
form. This has encouraged the idea that creativity and hard work are irreconcilable, and has led
to conclusions such as that simply relaxing or letting ideas flow will lead to creativity.
However, interpreters of Poincare's memoirs fail to mention that he had been working on his
problem for many years and that he possessed a vast amount of relevant knowledge
on to recount how after the first free flow of six or eight lines the next one or two took hours
to emerge, and Mozart's account is inconsistent with the fact that corrected early versions of
In fact, a number of researchers have confirmed the role of systematic hard work in creativity:
necessary fund of knowledge and skills, even in the case of famous youthful prodigies such as
Mozart, who, it is true, produced creative music in his teens, but started his interaction with
music by playing at the age of four! It seems to be appropriate to adopt an adapted version of
Edison's saying, replacing his word "genius" with "creativity": "Creativity is 1% inspiration,
99% perspiration!"
A related question is whether creativity can result from chance or luck. There are
many examples of apparently lucky combinations of events that led to acknowledged creative
solutions: for instance Pasteur, Fleming, Roentgen, Becquerel, Edison himself, Galvani and
Nobel all described chance events that led to breakthroughs. Just what is meant by chance can
12
be divided into four sets of circumstances: blind chance (the individual creator plays no role
except that of being there at the relevant moment; serendipity (a person active in a field hits
upon something novel and effective without actually looking for it); the luck of the diligent (a
long hourscreate the circumstances for a lucky breakthrough). Case studies suggest that
genuinely creative results require a combination of all four kinds of luck, which raises the
Some writers have argued that creativity need not require effort or specialized knowledge.
However, the importance of knowledge of the field for achieving effective surprise is now
widely accepted. Land, the inventor of the Polaroid camera, rejected the idea of sudden
argued that he had had a purposethe invention of a camera that developed its own pictures on
the spotand that all the necessary knowledge already existed. His achievement was to
assemble this knowledge and work his way through it to the almost inevitable result, the
polaroid camera.
Without questioning the importance of familiarity with a field, recent research has
looked at the problem that, although working successfully in a field over a long period of time
(i.e. becoming an expert) can provide a knowledge base that can be manipulated to yield
effective novelty, it can also produce a kind of tunnel vision that narrows thinking and restricts
the spark of inspiration", flexibility, or courage to try the new, great expertise can inhibit the
13
seeing the contents of their field in a fresh light. Creative experts often show a freshness and
openness that is more typical of beginners: This has been referred to as the "novice effect". I
once attended a lecture by the then 70 year old Nobel Prize winner Hans Selye, who
apologized for being in plaster from his toes to his hiphe had fallen out of a tree a few days
before after he saw something that seemed odd and interesting in the tree and climbed it in
requires among other things substantial knowledge of facts, effective acquisition of new facts,
rapid access to the contents of memory, accuracy in finding the best answer to factual
questions, and logical application of the already known. Creativity, on the other hand, requires
production of novelty: i.e. departure from the facts, finding new ways, inventing answers,
seeing unexpected solutions. The initial position adopted in the 1950s and 60s by psychologists
was that creativity and intelligence are thus separate, more or less competing or even mutually
exclusive dimensions of intellect. However, later theory has emphasized that the two overlap
or interact. Some writers have referred to this interaction as involving "true" intellectual
giftedness, with neither intelligence alone nor creativity leading to the production of effective
novelty. In studies of achievement at school or university level, for instance, it has been shown
that, by and large, those students are most successful who display both creativity and
intelligence. Recent research on practical creativity has shown that engineers rated as
was to see creativity as a way of applying intelligence or of organizing ideas, the difference
between the two being that they are thinking styles or tactics.
An early conceptualization of the way creativity and intelligence interact was the
creativity is possible. A slight extension is the idea that, as intelligence approaches this
rises (i.e., creativity and IQ are positively correlated below the threshold). When intelligence
lies above the threshold, increases in intelligence have no consequences for creativity (i.e., IQ
15
and creativity are uncorrelated once intelligence is high enough). This view has been expanded
somewhat by the idea of a "one way" relationship between creativity and intelligence.
Intelligence determines the upper limits of a person's ability to obtain and store information,
without actually being itself part of creativity. The degree of creativity depends upon the
intelligence. An approach even more clearly oriented towards information processing is the
idea that intelligence involves channel capacity, with creativity being the result of flexible and
versatile handling of information delivered by the channel, lack of creativity resulting from
One approach has involved identifying six "facets" of creativity: knowledge, insight,
intrinsic motivation, the courage of one's convictions, special personal factors such as flexibility
and willingness to take risks, and relevance. These facets overlap partially with facets of
intelligence. Knowledge is closely linked with it and is indispensible for a high IQ. Insight
involves particularly effective selection of information and may be favorable for high
intelligence, but is probably not absolutely necessary to obtain a high IQ. Intrinsic motivation is
favourable for the acquisition of knowledge, but it is possible to operate rapidly, accurately,
and logically without it. Flexibility and risk taking may even detract from performance on an
intelligence test. Summing up, it can be said that creativity and intelligence are neither identical
nor completely different, but are interacting aspects of intellectual ability. The achieving of
effective surprise, especially in practical settings, requires both. It is important to bear in mind,
however, that creativity is not merely a matter of cognitive process such as knowing, thinking,
recognizing remembering or puzzling out, but that it also involves factors such as motivation,
The term "problem solving" has a special meaning in current research and theory, especially in
psychology, and has its own research tradition separate from creativity research. It is often
problem solving research the person solving the problem knows that it exists and understands
the nature of the problem, intends to solve it, possesses special knowledge, some or all of
which is required to solve the problem, and knows what form the solution will take. Creativity
researchers, however, distinguish between problem solving and creative problem solving. The
latter is required when one or more of the elements just mentioned (knowledge of the problem,
of the means of solution and of the nature of the solution) is missing. In other words, creativity
can be involved in problem solving but is not always necessary, while not all problem solutions
are creative.
One way of showing the role of creativity in problem solving is to divide problems
according to (a) their degree of definition; (b) the degree of familiarity of the means for solving
them; (c) the clarity of the criteria for recognizing solutions. Clearly defined problems that are
solvable by means of standard techniques and for which there are obvious and well known
criteria identifying the solution constitute "routine" problems. They can often be solved
without the help of creativity, although when existing knowledge is applied in settings where it
has previously been treated as irrelevant, a certain "technical" or "inventive" creativity occurs.
Nonetheless, creativity is not absolutely necessary, and is probably not usual. By contrast,
some ill defined problems require, in the first instance, becoming aware that there is a problem
at all and finding a way of defining it, secondly working out techniques for solving the
17
problem, and thirdly development of criteria for recognizing a solution. Such "complex" or
Routine problems may inhibit the production of novelty (see also earlier discussions
of high expertise and creativity). It is also conceivable that the reverse could occur: Creativity
could inhibit the solving of routine problems, for instance by making them fuzzy and thus
blocking the emergence of a simple solution. In the case of intractible problems, on the other
"problem recognition" and the process of "problem finding" or "problem definition", which
they see as major elements of creativity. It is possible to distinguish between seeing problems
that are already evident in the present organization of available information and are obvious to
situation, and inventing problems that are only apparent after the available information has
been reorganized according to novel principles. A number of researchers see the finding of
The question also arises, whether creativity always involves solving problems. If
"product" is understood broadly enough, effective novelty could be argued always to lead to a
product, even if this is in the form of an idea or the act of transfering a procedure to an
unfamiliar setting. It is also possible to define "problem" very broadly, for instance the problem
of communicating a poet's sense of awe to readers or the problem of capturing the beauty of a
sunset on canvas. Using such broad definitions, it could be argued that creativity always
involves a product that solves a problem. However, conventional problem solving research in
Creativity requires doing things differently from the way they are usually done, or even defying
the norms of society, what some writers have called. "contrarianism" (although they were
writing about giftedness in general, and not specifically creativity). In a certain sense, creative
people defy the rules, even those who do not call attention to themselves through antisocial
behavior. Thus, creativity can be seen as a "failure" to conform to the norms of society.
In principle, all people are capable of a wide range of responses to life situations, but
in the process of growing up they learn that most of these are forbidden, and usually restrict
their responses to a narrow range of socially tolerated behaviors. This has the advantage that
life becomes predictable, since it is more or less known what can be expected in everyday
situations, but the disadvantage is that unusual, unexpected reactions are discouraged and
become rare. There are even rules about which opinions are correct, indeed about the right
way of thinking and the contents of correct thought. Societies are prepared to tolerate the
breaking of the rules to a certain degree, which rules can be broken or how large a deviation is
accepted varying from society to society and from time to time, as well as according to the
age, social position, occupation, and other characteristics of the individual doing the rule
breaking. For instance, the North American society would tolerate deviations from the norms
for behavior at a wedding by a 21 year old art student that would not be tolerated from the
local bank manager. In general, there are rules about breaking the rules. People publicly
acclaimed as creative break these rules, but succeed in staying within acceptable limits. If they
do not, they are likely to be regarded as eccentric, immoral, mentally disturbed or criminal
rather than creative, with the possibility of being criticized, shunned or even locked away.
19
themselves. Such creativity facilitators can be humble and unsung people, such as a grade
school teacher. In mature workers, such as scientists, working in a team may provide contact
with facilitators. An important function of such people is to offer creative individuals a safe
space where they can break the rules without sanctions, as well as to offer them a positive
perspective on themselves, for instance the view that their ideas are not crazy but creative. This
recognition can help to foster the courage to deviate from what everyone else is doing, among
other things by offering an opportunity to test the limits of the acceptable without risk or
feelings of guilt. The groups of which a person is a member, either intimate groups such as the
family, more public groups such as playmates or friends, or more or less formally defined
groups such as experts/critics, colleagues, or employers can also foster creativity by offering a
social environment marked by recognition and encouragement (or, of course, hinder or block it
2. Sociocultural validation
Science, Art and indeed all fields of creativity are themselves subsystems
esthetic/professional and also social to which the points just raised can also be applied. A
creative product must not only be novel, but must also be communicated to other people and,
most important in the present context, be accepted or at least tolerated by them. This
"creativity", but only of the "production of variability". Some theorists have argued that
20
"creativity" is not really a property of products or processes at all, but that it is a category of
judgment in the minds of observers, often acknowledged experts or specialists. In some areas
the rules for applying the label "creative" are well established, with the result that there is a
high level of agreement not only among judges, but also between experts and ordinary
members of the public. In other areas, however, there is less agreement, with the result that
there are often controversies, for instance over the quality of a painting, a book or a piece of
music. This approach not only places great emphasis on communication, but it also emphasizes
the final step in the emergence of a creative product: the phase of Validation by the
surrounding society.
vacuum. It is striking that research has shown that there is a relationship between the
economic/political situation of a society and the contents of the relevant and effective novelty
created in that society: After an economic depression, there may be a burst of, let us say,
literary creativity, after a successful war (if any war is ever "successful") creativity in the
performing arts, after an unsuccessful war in business and industry, and so on.
In business and industry, the emphasis is frequently on innovation, rather than creativity. The
difference is that innovation requires not only creating novelty, but also putting it into concrete
practice in a particular setting: Thus, in a certain sense, creativity can be seen as a prerequisite
problems are easy to solve in the framework of innovation, for instance the question for whom
novelty should be surprising, relevant and effective, or the issue of chance: Innovation requires
the deliberate introduction of ideas, products, production and marketing processes and the like
21
that are novel for a work group or an organisation into which they are introduced.
Effectiveness is also, at least in theory, easy to judge: production rises, sales improve, costs
sink, absenteeism or staff turnover falls, or accidents in the workplace occur less frequently, to
Innovation can also be seen as a process having two phases. In the initial ideational
phase ideas emerge that are new for the setting in which they occur. These ideas can be novel
in an absolute sense (i.e., involving "innovative" or "emergent" creativity), but they need not
be: For instance, a manager could make suggestions based on standard practice at a former
place of work, novel only in the new workplace. Applying the already known in a new setting
constitutes a creative act ("inventive creativity"), but only involves "minor" or "secondary"
creativity. After this ideational phase comes the behavioral phase, in which the novel idea is
put into practice. Creativity can occur without the behavioral phase, but this phase is essential
for innovation.
Of great importance in innovation is the fact that novel ideas have to be inserted into
an existing context (a business, a production process, a management team, etc). The "context"
is usually referred to in the relevant research literature as the organisation. The process of
insertion seems to occur in steps or phases, described in, for instance, the five phase model
involving "agenda setting" (the problem is defined and possible solutions considered),
innovation is adapted to the specific situation of the organisation or the organisation adapts
itself), "clarifying" (the organisation grasps what the innovation is all about), and "routinizing"
innovative behavior, and these bear a strong similarity to the properties of the "congenial
22
environment" described by creativity researchers. Among these factors are freedom to make
decisions, support from colleagues with whom one directly works, and facilitating attitudes or
other factors (e.g. leadership style) of superiors. Inhibiting factors include negative aspects of
the organisational climate, negative attitudes and leadership style of superiors, and inhibiting
structure of command. In the case of the individual person, innovation often demands
acquisition of new skills, on the one hand, cognitive reorganization on the other (changes in
These can lead to a conflict of values with resultant uncertainty or anxiety, and may have
consequences for the self-concept. As a result, personal characteristics of the individual such as
openness for the new, willingness to take risks, and flexibility interact with the characteristics
consequences.
creativity. It involves (a) novel products such as objects, machines, works of art, ideas,
solutions to problems, industrial or production processes, and the like; (b) psychological
processes such as fantasizing, diverging from the customary, or inventing, that lead to novel
products; or (c) personal properties of the person that permit or even promote the production
of novelty, including openness for the new, and self-concept as innovator. This latter dimension
can be expanded to include (d) motivation such as willingness to take risks and drive to find
new approaches.
23
Although products are of great interest to artists and business people, they present
serious problems for a psychological discussion. Artistic products are often the subject of great
controversy, with serious differences of opinion about their degree of novelty and especially
their effectiveness: criteria vary from beholder to beholder (for instance art, literature or
theatre critics) and from epoch to epoch. The perceived creativity of paintings has been shown
by researchers to vary according to the audience's beliefs about the identity of the painter or
the amount of time they believed was expended on completing the work. The psychological
1. Thinking processes
The decisive event in modern psychological analyses of creativity was the acceptance speech in
intellectual power could also be applied to the finding of substantial numbers of new, original
and unexpected answers, quite possibly to loosely defined problems. He referred to process as
a special kind of thinking, which he labelled "divergent". Guilford's original paper had the title
"creativity", and the equating of creativity with divergent thinking quickly established itself,
Other researchers have also concentrated on thinking processes as the basis for
creativity. A well known popular scientific approach emphasized "lateral" thinking. Other
concepts are "janusian" thinking (named after the Roman god Janus, who could look
backwards and forwards at the same time), "homospatial" thinking (ideas from different
domains are brought together in the same space), "biphasic" thinking (in the first phase
24
uninhibited combinations of ideas, which are then organized and sorted out in the second
phase, for instance according to social acceptability,), and "tertiary" thinking (in the
psychoanalytic sense, primary process and secondary process thinking are combined).
Associational theories emphasize the process of linking ideas. The theory of "remote
associates" is based on the observation that, in the course of their experiences, people learn a
occur frequently, others seldom. As a result, people learn a hierarchy of associations. Pairings
that occurred frequently in the past stand high in the hierarchy, and have a higher probablity of
being chosen when the stimulus occurs again than associations which occurrred infrequently in
the past. These less likely associations are "remote" and the person who makes them produces
unusual or unexpected ideas. A similar approach is seen in the theory of "bisociation", which
assumes that ideas occur in "matrices" or fields. Normally, ideas from the same field are
combined in a process of association. However, some people combine ideas from separate
matrices in a process of bisociation which, by virtue of the fact that the ideas are not normally
2. Personality
A number of writers have emphasized the importance of personality in creativity, some even
arguing that creativity may have little to do with cognitive processes at all, and may be the
result of a special personality constellation. Reviews of the relevant research typically list
characteristics such as flexibility, sensitiveness, autonomy and ego strength. Recent analyses of
earlier research, however, suggest that the relationship between creativity and personality is by
no means simple and straightforward. It is not possible to identify a certain kind of personality
profile that is typical of the creative, regardless of their field, and also distinguishes the creative
25
from the noncreative. A recent study emphasized the importance of a "complex" personality
that combines, among others, sensitivity with toughness or high intelligence with naivité.
Striking in the discussion of this point is that the personality characteristics regarded as
important for creativity sometimes seem to be contradictory: for instance, the creative
polarities: openness combined with drive to close incomplete gestalts; acceptance of fantasy
combined with maintenance of a strong sense of reality; critical and destructive attitudes
together with constructive problem solving; cool neutrality combined with passionate
3. Motivation
The creation of novelty requires not only appropriate thinking and personality, but also the
desire or at least the readiness to diverge, take risks, defy conventional opinion, or expose
oneself to the possibility of being wrong: In other words, appropriate motivation. A position
that is widely accepted in recent writing is that creativity is based on intrinsic motivation, the
wish to carry out an activity for the sake of the activity itself, and not in the hope of obtaining
external rewards. This latter form of motivation (seeking of external rewards) is referred to as
"extrinsic". Extrinsic motivation may inhibit creativity or even be fatal to it. It is extremely
seductive, and once people have been exposed to it they are in danger of shaping their
behavior, and even their thinking, into forms that lead to external rewards, such as personal
According to the "triad" model, there are five classes of creativity motive:
Instrumental motives, playful motives, intrinsic motives, control motives and expressive
motives. In contrast to the emphasis on intrinsic motivation, this approach argues that
creativity can be a means to an end, for example a person might write a book in the hope of
making money. Motives interact or change with time. To take an example, a person might
become aware in the course of writing of the feeling of having an important message that must
motivation. Such "individual structures of motivation" are capable of changing with time, so
that a given person might at one point be more extrinsically motivated, at another more
by the "evolving systems" approach, according to which a creative product emerges as the
result of a long process of development of knowledge, emotions and feelings, and goals.
The ideas that there is a connection between creativity and madness is one of the oldest issues
in modern psychology, and was already a subject of empirical investigation a good 100 years
ago. Contemporary research has adopted two approaches, either studying acknowledged
creative people to see if they are more frequently mentally disturbed than chance would
predict, or working with people already regarded as mentally ill or at least "eccentric" in order
to see if they show more creativity than the general population. Studies in Britain, where being
eccentric is accepted without great stigma, have shown that many eccentrics hold patents,
some of them several. At a more theoretical level, it has been shown that there are some
27
making, for instance, more remote associations and thinking more divergently. However,
schizophrenic thinking does not favor production of effective novelty, despite its divergent
nature. Schizophrenics are frightened by their own unusual ideation, whereas creative people
It has also been shown that mood disturbances are much more common among
acknowledged creative people than in the general public. However, the connection between
mood disturbance and creativity does not seem to involve a direct causal relationship. Instead,
both mood disturbance and creativity seem to be related to emotional lability and greater
sensitivity to external stimuli or internal mood fluctuations, thus producing an apparent causal
relationship. Mood states such as manic disorders could also reduce fear of embarrassing
oneself or promote self-confidence, once again creating an erroneous impression that the manic
disorder causes the creativity. Generally, the position of clinically oriented researchers on
creativity is that it requires a high level of mental health, or even that creativity promotes
mental health.
The "classical" description of the emergence of creative products is the phase model, which
was first introduced into creativity research about 75 years ago. In early research four phases
or stages were distinguished: In the first, referred to as the phase of Information, a person
becomes thoroughly familiar with a content area. In the Incubation phase the person "churns"
through the information obtained in the previous phase until a solution appears; this marks the
phase of Illumination. The solution may seem to the person in question suddenly to have
appeared from nowhere, because its emergence into consciousness may come all at once, thus
28
creating the subjective feeling of creativity without perspiration. This would explain why some
creative people (see above) overlook the phases of information and incubation in describing
their own creativity. Finally comes the phase of Verification, in which the person tests the
There is disagreement among more recent theorists and researchers about whether
incubation processes are chaotic and more or less random, with a solution popping up out of
the seething cauldron of ideas and being recognized or not, according to the ability of the
person in question to recognize that a solution is at hand or the openness of this person for
new solutions, or whether it follows strict rules, for instance running through all logical
possibilities until an answer is found. Recently, it has been recognized that the latter would
involve vast numbers of "empty trials", and would be extremely inefficient. Some writers have
argued that the process must be shortened either by means of intuition, a sensing that certain
approaches offer more promise than others, or via metacognitive processes (for instance, rules
showing how to recognize that some lines of attack are dead ends, criteria for evaluating the
usefulness of what has been achieved to date, strategies for generating promising new
approaches).
something new, as well as retrospective studies in which acknowledged creators described how
they obtained new ideas, have cast doubt on the validity of the phase model. Nonetheless, it
offers a helpful way of disentangling a number of issues in the definition of creativity. For this
reason, it will be retained here as an aid to the present theoretical discussion. Figure 1 (see next
page) shows an expanded phase model incorporating the additional phases Communication
and Validation. This figure is reprinted from Runco, M. (Ed.). (1997). Handbook of Creativity
Convergent thinking
Rich fund of
Prerequisite : Determination,
Incubation information,
motivation, problem Fascination
impressions, etc.
finding skill
Evaluation of
configurations for
novelty Satisfaction,
Verification Prerequisite : Novel configuration(s)
Pride in oneself
those above, knowledge
of the field, familiarity
with norms and
conventions
A societally
Elation
acclaimed product
The figure goes beyond a depiction of the phases of creativity to show how different
psychological factors (see Section IV) are of particular importance in the emergence of a creative
30
product in different phases of the production process. In each phase (see left hand column), core
psychological processes (second column) are applied to the results of the previous phase (third
column), to produce the material for the next phase. The psychological processes are made
possible or at least facilitated by factors such as motivation, openness for the new or willingness
to take risks. The total process is accompanied in its various phases by feelings such as
product. In practice, the process can be broken off earlier, for instance when evaluation of the
product to date indicates that it is a failure. The creative process can also start part way through,
for instance when a person returns to an earlier novel configuration to verify it. It can also
function as a kind of spiral; for example new information could make it possible to verify a novel
An expanded phase model is helpful in sorting out one aspect of creativity that has already
been touched upon without being made explicit: The definition of creativity involves reconciling
"paradoxes". Among these are the following: (a) Creativity involves difference from the everyday,
but is found in everybody; (b) novelty, the single essential element in creativity, is necessary but
not sufficient to define it; (c) creativity is not the same as intelligence, but it is also not completely
different; (d) creative production requires deep knowledge, but freedom from its constraints; (e)
creativity implies bringing something new into existence, but can be studied without reference to
products; (f) creativity requires deviating from social norms, but doing this in a way that the
society can tolerate (g) creativity requires combining contradictory personality characteristics; (h)
opposite kinds of motivation can lead to creativity. The phase model suggests that the paradoxical
combinations occur in different phases of the process of production of novelty: For instance,
convergent thinking might dominate in the phase of Preparation, divergent thinking in that of
31
References
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention.
Gardner, H. (1995). Leading Minds: An Anatomy of Leadership. Basic Books, New York.
Eysenck, H. J. (1995). Genius: The Natural History of Creativity. Cambridge University Press,
New York.
Glover, J. A., Ronning, R: R: & Reynolds, C. R. (1989). Handbook of Creativity. Plenum Press,
New York.
Simonton, D. K. (1994). Greatness: Who makes History and Why. Guilford, New York.
Sternberg, R. J. & Lubart, T. I. (1995). Defying the crowd: Cultivating Creativity in a Culture of
Conformity.