Creativity: Creativity Is A Phenomenon Whereby Something Somehow New and Somehow Valuable Is Formed. The

8/6/2021 Creativity - Wikipedia
Creativity
Creativity is a phenomenon whereby something somehow new and somehow valuable is formed. The
created item may be intangible (such as an idea, a scientific theory, a musical composition, or a joke) or a
physical object (such as an invention, a printed literary work, or a painting).
Scholarly interest in creativity is found in a number of disciplines, primarily psychology, business

studies, and cognitive science, but also education, the humanities, technology, engineering, philosophy
(particularly philosophy of science), theology, sociology, linguistics, the arts, economics, and
mathematics. These disciplines cover the relations between creativity and general intelligence,
personality type, mental and neural processes, mental health, or artificial intelligence; the potential for
fostering creativity through education and training; the fostering of creativity for national economic
benefit, and the application of creative resources to improve the effectiveness of teaching and learning.
Contents
Etymology
Definition
Aspects
Conceptual history
Ancient A picture of a lightbulb is
Post-Enlightenment associated with
someone having an
Modern
idea, an example of
"Four C" model creativity.
Process theories
Incubation
Convergent and divergent thinking
Creative cognition approach
The Explicit–Implicit Interaction (EII) theory
Conceptual blending
Honing theory
Everyday imaginative thought
Dialectical theory of creativity
Neuroeconomic framework for creative cognition
Personal assessment
Creativity quotient
Psychometric approach
Social-personality approach
Self-report questionnaires
Intelligence
Creativity as a subset of intelligence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creativity 1/48
Intelligence as a subset of creativity

Creativity and intelligence as overlapping yet distinct constructs
Creativity and intelligence as coincident sets
Creativity and intelligence as disjoint sets
Neuroscience
Working memory and the cerebellum
REM sleep
Affect
Positive affect relations
Computational creativity
Creativity and mental health
Bipolar Disorders and Creativity
Personality
Malevolent creativity
Crime
Predictive factors
Cultural differences in creativity
Organizational creativity
Team composition
Team processes
Organizational culture
Constraints
The sociology of creativity
Economic views
Fostering creativity
Managing the need for closure
Education policies
Scotland
Academic journals
See also
Notes
References
Further reading
External links
Etymology
The English word creativity comes from the Latin term creare, "to create, make": its derivational suffixes
also come from Latin. The word "create" appeared in English as early as the 14th century, notably in
Chaucer (in The Parson's Tale[1]), to indicate divine creation.[2]
However, its modern meaning as an act of human creation did not emerge until after the
Enlightenment.[2]
Definition
In a summary of scientific research into creativity, Michael Mumford suggested: "Over the course of the
last decade, however, we seem to have reached a general agreement that creativity involves the
production of novel, useful products" (Mumford, 2003, p. 110),[3] or, in Robert Sternberg's words, the
production of "something original and worthwhile".[4] Authors have diverged dramatically in their
precise definitions beyond these general commonalities: Peter Meusburger reckons that over a hundred
different analyses can be found in the literature.[5] As an illustration, one definition given by Dr. E. Paul
Torrance described it as "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."[6]
Creativity in general is usually distinguished from innovation in particular, where the stress is on
implementation. For example, Teresa Amabile and Pratt (2016) defines creativity as production of novel
and useful ideas and innovation as implementation of creative ideas,[7] 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 organisations."[8]
There is also an emotional creativity[9] which is described as a pattern of cognitive abilities and
personality traits related to originality and appropriateness in emotional experience.[10]
Aspects
Theories of creativity (particularly investigation 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 Ps" — process,
product, person, and place (according to Mel Rhodes).[11] A focus on process is shown in cognitive
approaches that try to describe thought mechanisms and techniques for creative thinking. Theories
invoking divergent rather than convergent thinking (such as Guilford), or those describing the staging of
the creative process (such as Wallas) are primarily theories of creative process. A focus on creative
product usually appears in attempts to measure creativity (psychometrics, see below) and in creative
ideas framed as successful memes.[12] The psychometric approach to creativity reveals that it also
involves the ability to produce more.[13]
A focus on the nature of the creative person considers more
general intellectual habits, such as openness, levels of ideation, autonomy, expertise, exploratory
behavior, and so on. A focus on place considers the circumstances in which creativity flourishes, such as
degrees of autonomy, access to resources, and the nature of gatekeepers. Creative lifestyles are
characterized by nonconforming attitudes and behaviors as well as flexibility.[13]
Conceptual history
Ancient
Most ancient cultures, including thinkers of Ancient Greece,[14] Ancient China,

and Ancient India,[15] 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 "poiein" ("to make"), which
only applied to poiesis (poetry) and to the poietes (poet, or "maker") who made
it. Plato did not believe in art as a form of creation. Asked in The Republic,[16]
"Will we say, of a painter, that he makes something?", he answers, "Certainly
not, he merely imitates."[14]
It is commonly argued that the notion of "creativity" originated in Western Greek philosophers like
cultures through Christianity, as a matter of divine inspiration.[2] According to Plato rejected the
the historian Daniel J. Boorstin, "the early Western conception of creativity concept of creativity,
was the Biblical story of creation given in the Genesis."[17] However, this is not preferring to see art as a
creativity in the modern sense, which did not arise until the Renaissance. In form of discovery. Asked
the Judaeo-Christian tradition, creativity was the sole province of God; in The Republic, "Will
humans were not considered to have the ability to create something new we say, of a painter, that
he makes something?",
except as an expression of God's work.[18] A concept similar to that of
Plato answers,
Christianity existed in Greek culture, for instance, Muses were seen as
"Certainly not, he merely
mediating inspiration from the Gods.[19] Romans and Greeks invoked the imitates."[14]
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 individual was not seen as the cause of creation until the
Renaissance.[20] It was during the Renaissance that creativity was first seen, not as a conduit for the
divine, but from the abilities of "great men".[20]
Post-Enlightenment
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.[18] The development of
the modern concept of creativity begins 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.[21] From this philosophy
arose the Renaissance man (or polymath), an individual who embodies the principals of humanism in
their ceaseless courtship with knowledge and creation.[22] One of the most well-known and immensely
accomplished examples is Leonardo da Vinci.
However, this shift was gradual and would not become immediately apparent until the
Enlightenment.[20] By the 18th century and the Age of Enlightenment, mention of creativity (notably in
aesthetics), linked with the concept of imagination, became more frequent.[23] In the writing of Thomas
Hobbes, imagination became a key element of human cognition;[2] William Duff was one of the first to
identify imagination as a quality of genius, typifying the separation being made between talent
(productive, but breaking no new ground) and genius.[19]
As a direct and independent topic of study, creativity effectively received no attention until the 19th
century.[19] 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.[2]
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, leading mathematicians and scientists such as Hermann von
Helmholtz (1896) and Henri Poincaré (1908) began to reflect on and publicly discuss their creative
processes.
Modern
The insights of Poincaré and von Helmholtz were built on in early accounts of the creative process by
pioneering theorists such as Graham Wallas[24] and Max Wertheimer. In his work Art of Thought,
published in 1926, 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 5 stages:
(i) preparation (preparatory work on a problem that focuses the individual's mind on the problem
and explores the problem's dimensions),
(ii) incubation (where the problem is internalized into the unconscious mind and nothing appears
externally to be happening),
(iii) intimation (the creative person gets a "feeling" that a solution is on its way),
(iv) illumination or insight (where the creative idea bursts forth from its preconscious processing
into conscious awareness);
(v) verification (where the idea is consciously verified, elaborated, and then applied).
Wallas' model is 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[25] 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.[26] 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".[27]
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,[28] 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.[29] The address helped to popularize the study of creativity and to focus attention on scientific
approaches to conceptualizing creativity. Statistical analyses led to the recognition of creativity (as
measured) as a separate aspect of human cognition to 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.[30]
"Four C" model

James C. Kaufman and Beghetto introduced a "four C" model of creativity; mini-c ("transformative
learning" involving "personally meaningful interpretations of experiences, actions, and insights"), little-c
(everyday problem solving and creative expression), Pro-C (exhibited by people who are professionally or
vocationally creative though not necessarily eminent) and Big-C (creativity considered great in the given
field). 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.[31]
The contrast of 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.[30] Margaret Boden distinguishes between h-
creativity (historical) and p-creativity (personal).[32]
Robinson[33] and Anna Craft[34] have focused on creativity in a general population, particularly with
respect to education. Craft makes a similar distinction between "high" and "little c" creativity.[34] and
cites Ken Robinson as referring to "high" and "democratic" creativity. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi[35] has
defined creativity in terms of those individuals judged to have made significant creative, perhaps
domain-changing contributions. Simonton has analysed the career trajectories of eminent creative
people in order to map patterns and predictors of creative productivity.[36]
Process theories
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.
Incubation
Incubation is a temporary break from creative problem solving that can result in insight.[37] There has
been some empirical research looking at whether, as the concept of "incubation" in Wallas' model
implies, a period of interruption or rest from a problem may aid creative problem-solving. Ward[38] lists
various hypotheses that have been advanced to explain why incubation may aid creative problem-
solving, and notes how some empirical evidence is consistent with the hypothesis that incubation aids
creative problem in that it enables "forgetting" of misleading clues. Absence of incubation may lead the
problem solver to become fixated on inappropriate strategies of solving the problem.[39] This work
disputes the earlier hypothesis that creative solutions to problems arise mysteriously from the
unconscious mind while the conscious mind is occupied on other tasks.[40] This earlier hypothesis is
discussed in Csikszentmihalyi's five-phase model of the creative process which describes incubation as a
time that your unconscious takes over. This allows for unique connections to be made without our
consciousness trying to make logical order out of the problem.[41]
Convergent and divergent thinking
J. P. Guilford[42] drew a distinction between convergent and divergent production (commonly renamed
convergent and divergent thinking). Convergent thinking involves aiming for a single, correct solution to
a problem, whereas divergent thinking involves creative generation of multiple answers to a set problem.
Divergent thinking is sometimes used as a synonym for creativity in psychology literature. Other
researchers have occasionally used the terms flexible thinking or fluid intelligence, which are roughly
similar to (but not synonymous with) creativity.[43]
Creative cognition approach
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.
Some evidence shows that when people use their imagination to develop new ideas, those ideas are
heavily structured in predictable ways by the properties of existing categories and concepts.[44]
Weisberg[45] argued, by contrast, that creativity only involves ordinary cognitive processes yielding
extraordinary results.
The Explicit–Implicit Interaction (EII) theory
Helie and Sun[46] more recently proposed a unified framework for understanding creativity in problem
solving, namely the Explicit–Implicit Interaction (EII) theory of creativity. This new theory constitutes
an attempt at providing 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, namely:
1. The co-existence of and the difference between explicit and implicit knowledge;
2. The simultaneous involvement of implicit and explicit processes in most tasks;
3. The redundant representation of explicit and implicit knowledge;
4. The integration of the results of explicit and implicit processing;
5. The iterative (and possibly bidirectional) processing.
A computational implementation of the theory was developed based on the CLARION cognitive
architecture and used to simulate relevant human data. This work represents an initial step in the
development of process-based theories of creativity encompassing incubation, insight, and various other
related phenomena.
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.[47] This idea was later developed into
conceptual blending. In the 1990s, various approaches in cognitive science that dealt with metaphor,
analogy, and structure mapping have been converging, and a new integrative approach to the study of
creativity in science, art and humor has emerged under the label conceptual blending.
Honing theory
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 the internal cognitive restructuring and repair of the
worldview brought about by the creative process. When faced with a creatively demanding task, there is
an interaction between the conception of the task and the 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 not only is the task conceived of
differently, but the worldview is subtly or drastically transformed as it follows 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.
A central feature of honing theory is the notion of a potentiality state.[48] 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’. It is at that point that 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 are observed in studies to exhibit a recognizable style
or 'voice' even though 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 in the environmental stimulus for creativity. Creativity is commonly considered to be fostered by a
supportive, nurturing, trustworthy environment conducive to self-actualization. However, research
shows that creativity is also associated with childhood adversity, which would stimulate honing.
Everyday imaginative thought
In everyday thought, people often spontaneously imagine alternatives to reality when they think "if
only...".[49] Their counterfactual thinking is viewed as an example of everyday creative processes.[50] It
has been proposed that the creation of counterfactual alternatives to reality depends on similar cognitive
processes to rational thought.[51]
Dialectical theory of creativity
The term "dialectical theory of creativity" dates back to psychoanalyst Daniel Dervin[52] and was later
developed into an interdisciplinary theory.[53] The dialectical theory of creativity starts with the antique
concept that creativity takes place in an interplay between order and chaos. Similar ideas can be found in
neurosciences 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.[54] Also creative personality traits like the ‘Big Five’
seem to be dialectically intertwined in the creative process: emotional instability vs. stability,
extraversion vs. introversion, openness vs. reserve, agreeableness vs. antagonism and disinhibition vs.
constraint.[55] The dialectical theory of creativity applies also to counseling and psychotherapy.[56]
Neuroeconomic framework for creative cognition
Lin and Vartanian developed a framework that provides an integrative neurobiological description of
creative cognition.[57] 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.[58] It suggests that creativity is an
optimization and utility-maximization problem that requires individuals to determine the optimal way to
exploit and explore ideas (multi-armed bandit problem). This utility maximization process is thought to
be mediated by the locus coeruleus system[59] and this creativity framework describes how tonic and
phasic locus coerulues 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).
Personal assessment
Creativity quotient
There was a creativity quotient developed similar to the intelligence quotient (IQ). It makes use of the
results of divergent thinking tests (see below) by processing them further. It gives more weight to ideas
that are radically different from other ideas in the response.[60]
Psychometric approach
J. P. Guilford's group,[42] which pioneered the modern psychometric study of creativity, constructed
several tests to measure creativity in 1967:
Plot Titles, where participants are given the plot of a story and asked to write original titles.
Quick Responses is a word-association test scored for uncommonness.
Figure Concepts, where participants were given simple drawings of objects and individuals and
asked to find qualities or features that are common by two or more drawings; these were scored for
uncommonness.
Unusual Uses is finding unusual uses for common everyday objects such as bricks.
Remote Associations, where participants are asked to find a word between two given words (e.g.
Hand _____ Call)
Remote Consequences, where participants are asked to generate a list of consequences of
unexpected events (e.g. loss of gravity)
Originally, Guilford was trying to create a model for intellect as a whole, but in doing so also created a
model for creativity. Guilford made an important assumption for creative research: creativity is not one
abstract concept. The idea that creativity is a category rather than one single concept opened up the
ability for other researchers to look at creativity with a whole new perspective.[61][62]
Additionally, Guilford hypothesized one of the first models for the components of creativity. He
explained that creativity was a result of having:
1. Sensitivity to problems, or the ability to recognize problems;

2. Fluency, which encompasses
a. Ideational fluency, or the ability rapidly to produce a variety of ideas that fulfill stated
requirements;
b. Associational fluency, or the ability to generate a list of words, each of which is associated
with a given word;
c. Expressional fluency, or the ability to organize words into larger units, such as phrases,
sentences, and paragraphs;
3. Flexibility, which encompasses
a. Spontaneous flexibility, or the ability to demonstrate flexibility;

b. Adaptive flexibility, or the ability to produce responses that are novel and high in quality.
This represents the base model by which several researchers would take and alter to produce their new
theories of creativity years later.[61] Building on Guilford's work, Torrance[63] developed the Torrance
Tests of Creative Thinking in 1966.[64] They involved simple tests of divergent thinking and other
problem-solving skills, which were scored on:
Fluency – The total number of interpretable, meaningful, and relevant ideas generated in response
to the stimulus.
Originality – The statistical rarity of the responses among the test subjects.
Elaboration – The amount of detail in the responses.
Such tests, sometimes called Divergent Thinking (DT) tests have been both supported[65] and
criticized.[66]
Considerable progress has been made in automated scoring of divergent thinking tests using semantic
approach. When compared to human raters, NLP techniques were shown to be reliable and valid in
scoring the originality.[67][68] The reported computer programs were able to achieve a correlation of 0.60
and 0.72 respectively to human graders.
Semantic networks were also used to devise originality scores that yielded significant correlations with
socio-personal measures.[69] Most recently, an NSF-funded[70] team of researchers led by James C.
Kaufman and Mark A. Runco[71] combined expertise in creativity research, natural language processing,
computational linguistics, and statistical data analysis to devise a scalable system for computerized
automated testing (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.[66] The resultant computer system was able to achieve a correlation of 0.73 to
human graders.[72]
Social-personality approach
Some researchers have taken a social-personality approach to the measurement of creativity. In these
studies, personality traits such as independence of judgement, self-confidence, attraction to complexity,
aesthetic orientation, and risk-taking are used as measures of the creativity of individuals.[29] A meta-
analysis by Gregory Feist showed that creative people tend to be "more open to new experiences, less
conventional and less conscientious, more self-confident, self-accepting, driven, ambitious, dominant,
hostile, and impulsive." Openness, conscientiousness, self-acceptance, hostility, and impulsivity had the
strongest effects of the traits listed.[73] Within the framework of the Big Five model of personality, some
consistent traits have emerged.[74] Openness to experience has been shown to be consistently related to a
whole host of different assessments of creativity.[75] Among 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.[73]
Self-report questionnaires
An alternative is using biographical methods. These methods use quantitative characteristics such as the
number of publications, patents, or performances of a work. 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. For example, the Creative Achievement Questionnaire, a self-report test that measures creative
achievement across 10 domains, was described in 2005 and shown to be reliable and valid when
compared to other measures of creativity and to independent evaluation of creative output.[76] Besides
the English original, it was also used in a Chinese,[77] French,[78] and German-speaking[79] version. It is
the self-report questionnaire most frequently used in research.[77]
Intelligence
The potential relationship between creativity and intelligence has been of interest since the late 1900s,
when a multitude of influential studies – from Getzels & Jackson,[80] Barron,[81] Wallach & Kogan,[82]
and Guilford[83] – 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.[84]
There are multiple theories accounting for their relationship, with the 3 main theories as follows:
Threshold Theory – Intelligence is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for creativity. There is a
moderate positive relationship between creativity and intelligence until IQ ~120.[81][83]
Certification Theory – Creativity is not intrinsically related to intelligence. Instead, individuals are
required to meet the requisite level intelligence in order to gain a certain level of education/work,
which then in turn offers the opportunity to be creative. Displays of creativity are moderated by
intelligence.[85]
Interference Theory – Extremely high intelligence might interfere with creative ability.[86]
Sternberg and O’Hara[87] proposed a framework of 5 possible relationships between creativity and
intelligence:
1. Creativity is a subset of intelligence

2. Intelligence is a subset of creativity
3. Creativity and intelligence are overlapping constructs
4. Creativity and intelligence are part of the same construct (coincident sets)
5. Creativity and intelligence are distinct constructs (disjoint sets)
Creativity as a subset of intelligence
A number of researchers include creativity, either explicitly or implicitly, as a key component of

intelligence.
Examples of theories that include creativity as a subset of intelligence
Sternberg's Theory of Successful intelligence[86][87][88] (see Triarchic theory of intelligence) includes

creativity as a main component, and comprises 3 sub-theories: Componential (Analytic), Contextual
(Practical), and Experiential (Creative). Experiential sub-theory – the ability to use pre-existing
knowledge and skills to solve new and novel problems – is directly related to creativity.
The Cattell–Horn–Carroll theory includes creativity as a subset of intelligence. Specifically, it is
associated with the broad group factor of long-term storage and retrieval (Glr). Glr narrow abilities
relating to creativity include:[89] ideational fluency, associational fluency, and originality/creativity.
Silvia et al.[90] conducted a study to look at the relationship between divergent thinking and verbal
fluency tests, and reported that both fluency and originality in divergent thinking were significantly
affected by the broad level Glr factor. Martindale[91] extended the CHC-theory in the sense that it was
proposed that those individuals who are creative are also selective in their processing speed.
Martindale argues that in the creative process, larger amounts of information are processed more
slowly in the early stages, and as the individual begins to understand the problem, the processing
speed is increased.
The Dual Process Theory of Intelligence[92] posits a two-factor/type model of intelligence. Type 1 is a
conscious process, and concerns goal directed thoughts, which are explained by g. Type 2 is an
unconscious process, and concerns spontaneous cognition, which encompasses daydreaming and
implicit learning ability. Kaufman argues that creativity occurs as a result of Type 1 and Type 2
processes working together in combination. The use of each type in the creative process can be
used to varying degrees.
Intelligence as a subset of creativity
In this relationship model, intelligence is a key component in the development of creativity.
Theories of creativity that include intelligence as a subset of creativity
Sternberg & Lubart's Investment Theory.[93][94] Using the metaphor of a stock market, they
demonstrate that creative thinkers are like good investors – they buy low and sell high (in their
ideas). Like under/low-valued stock, creative individuals generate unique ideas that are initially
rejected by other people. The creative individual has to persevere, and convince the others of the
ideas value. After convincing the others, and thus increasing the ideas value, the creative individual
‘sells high’ by leaving the idea with the other people, and moves onto generating another idea.
According to this theory, six distinct, but related elements contribute to successful creativity:
intelligence, knowledge, thinking styles, personality, motivation, and environment. Intelligence is just
one of the six factors that can either solely, or in conjunction with the other five factors, generate
creative thoughts.
Amabile's Componential Model of Creativity.[95][96] In this model, there are 3 within-individual
components needed for creativity – domain-relevant skills, creativity-relevant processes, and task
motivation – and 1 component external to the individual: their surrounding social environment.
Creativity requires a confluence of all components. High creativity will result when an individual is:
intrinsically motivated, possesses both a high level of domain-relevant skills and has high skills in
creative thinking, and is working in a highly creative environment.
Amusement Park Theoretical Model.[97] In this 4-step theory, both domain-specific and generalist
views are integrated into a model of creativity. The researchers make use of the metaphor of the
amusement park to demonstrate that within each of these creative levels, intelligence plays a key
role:
To get into the amusement park, there are initial requirements (e.g., time/transport to go to the
park). Initial requirements (like intelligence) are necessary, but not sufficient for creativity. They
are more like prerequisites for creativity, and if an individual does not possess the basic level of
the initial requirement (intelligence), then they will not be able to generate creative
thoughts/behaviour.
Secondly are the subcomponents – general thematic areas – that increase in specificity. Like
choosing which type of amusement park to visit (e.g. a zoo or a water park), these areas relate to
the areas in which someone could be creative (e.g. poetry).
Thirdly, there are specific domains. After choosing the type of park to visit e.g. waterpark, you
then have to choose which specific park to go to. Within the poetry domain, there are many
different types (e.g. free verse, riddles, sonnet, etc.) that have to be selected from.
Lastly, there are micro-domains. These are the specific tasks that reside within each domain e.g.
individual lines in a free verse poem / individual rides at the waterpark.
Creativity and intelligence as overlapping yet distinct constructs
This possible relationship concerns creativity and intelligence as distinct, but intersecting constructs.
Theories that include Creativity and Intelligence as Overlapping Yet Distinct Constructs
Renzulli's Three-Ring Conception of Giftedness.[98] In this conceptualisation, giftedness occurs as a

result from the overlap of above average intellectual ability, creativity, and task commitment. Under
this view, creativity and intelligence are distinct constructs, but they do overlap under the correct
conditions.
PASS theory of intelligence. In this theory, the planning component – relating to the ability to solve
problems, make decisions and take action – strongly overlaps with the concept of creativity.[99]
Threshold Theory (TT). A number of previous research findings have suggested that a threshold
exists in the relationship between creativity and intelligence – both constructs are moderately
positively correlated up to an IQ of ~120. Above this threshold of an IQ of 120, if there is a
relationship at all, it is small and weak.[80][81][100] TT posits that a moderate level of intelligence is
necessary for creativity.
In support of the TT, Barron[81][101] reported finding a non-significant correlation between creativity and
intelligence in a gifted sample; and a significant correlation in a non-gifted sample. Yamamoto[102] in a
sample of secondary school children, reported a significant correlation between creativity and
intelligence of r = .3, and reported no significant correlation when the sample consisted of gifted
children. Fuchs-Beauchamp et al.[103] in a sample of preschoolers found that creativity and intelligence
correlated from r = .19 to r = .49 in the group of children who had an IQ below the threshold; and in the
group above the threshold, the correlations were r = <.12. Cho et al.[104] reported a correlation of .40
between creativity and intelligence in the average IQ group of a sample of adolescents and adults; and a
correlation of close to r = .0 for the high IQ group. Jauk et al.[105] found support for the TT, but only for
measures of creative potential; not creative performance.
Much modern day research reports findings against TT. Wai et al.[106] in a study using data from the
longitudinal Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth – a cohort of elite students from early
adolescence into adulthood – found that differences in SAT scores at age 13 were predictive of creative
real-life outcomes 20 years later. Kim's[107] meta-analysis of 21 studies did not find any supporting
evidence for TT, and instead negligible correlations were reported between intelligence, creativity, and
divergent thinking both below and above IQ's of 120. Preckel et al.,[108] investigating fluid intelligence
and creativity, reported small correlations of r = .3 to r = .4 across all levels of cognitive ability.
Creativity and intelligence as coincident sets
Under this view, researchers posit that there are no differences in the mechanisms underlying creativity
in 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[109] referred to this as the
‘nothing-special’ view.
Weisberg & Alba[110] examined problem solving by having participants complete the nine dots puzzle –
where the participants are asked to connect all 9 dots in the 3 rows of 3 dots using 4 straight lines or less,
without lifting their pen or tracing the same line twice. The problem can only be solved if the lines go
outside the boundaries of the square of dots. Results demonstrated that even when participants were
given this insight, they still found it difficult to solve the problem, thus showing that to successfully
complete the task it is not just insight (or creativity) that is required.
Creativity and intelligence as disjoint sets
In this view, creativity and intelligence are completely different, unrelated constructs.
Getzels and Jackson[80] administered 5 creativity measures to a group of 449 children from grades 6-12,
and compared these test findings to results from previously administered (by the school) IQ tests. They
found that the correlation between the creativity measures and IQ was r = .26. The high creativity group
scored in the top 20% of the overall creativity measures, but were not included in the top 20% of IQ
scorers. The high intelligence group scored the opposite: they scored in the top 20% for IQ, but were
outside the top 20% scorers for creativity, thus showing that creativity and intelligence are distinct and
unrelated.
However, this work has been heavily criticised. Wallach and Kogan[82] highlighted that the creativity
measures were not only weakly related to one another (to the extent that they were no more related to
one another than they were with IQ), but they seemed to also draw upon non-creative skills.
McNemar[111] noted that there were major measurement issues, in that the IQ scores were a mixture
from 3 different IQ tests.
Wallach and Kogan[82] administered 5 measures of creativity, each of which resulted in a score for
originality and fluency; and 10 measures of general intelligence to 151 5th grade children. These tests
were untimed, and given in a game-like manner (aiming to facilitate creativity). Inter-correlations
between creativity tests were on average r = .41. Inter-correlations between intelligence measures were
on average r = .51 with each other. Creativity tests and intelligence measures correlated r = .09.
Neuroscience
The neuroscience of creativity looks at the operation of the brain
during creative behaviour. It has been addressed[112] in the article
"Creative Innovation: Possible Brain Mechanisms." The authors
write that "creative innovation might require coactivation and
communication between regions of the brain that ordinarily are not
strongly connected." Highly creative people who excel at creative
innovation tend to differ from others in three ways:
distributed functional brain network
associated with divergent thinking
they have a high level of specialized knowledge,
they are capable of divergent thinking mediated by the frontal lobe.

and 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.
This article also explored the links between creativity and sleep, mood and addiction disorders, and
depression.
In 2005, Alice Flaherty presented a three-factor model of the creative drive. Drawing from evidence in
brain imaging, drug studies and lesion analysis, she described the creative drive as resulting from an
interaction of the frontal lobes, the temporal lobes, and dopamine from the limbic system. The frontal
lobes can be seen as responsible for idea generation, and the temporal lobes for idea editing and
evaluation. Abnormalities in the frontal lobe (such as depression or anxiety) generally decrease
creativity, while abnormalities in the temporal lobe often increase creativity. High activity in the
temporal lobe typically inhibits activity in the frontal lobe, and vice versa. High dopamine levels increase
general arousal and goal directed behaviors and reduce latent inhibition, and all three effects increase the
drive to generate ideas.[113] 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.[114]
Similarly, 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.[57] This framework describes how neural activity in different brain regions and networks like
the default mode network are tracking utility or subjective value of ideas.
In 2018, 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.[115]
Working memory and the cerebellum
Vandervert[116] 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[117]) are adaptively
modeled for increased efficiency by the cerebellum.[118] The cerebellum (consisting of 100 billion
neurons, which is more than the entirety of the rest of the brain[119]) is also widely known to adaptively
model 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[120] where
creative and innovative thoughts arise.[121] (Apparently, creative insight or the "aha" experience is then
triggered in the temporal lobe.[122])
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).[123] 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,[124] 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.
Essentially, Vandervert has argued 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.[125] Most recently, he has argued 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.[126]
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.[127] 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.[128][129]
REM sleep
Creativity involves the forming of associative elements into new combinations that are useful or meet
some requirement. Sleep aids this process.[130] REM rather than NREM sleep appears to be
responsible.[131][132] This has been suggested to be due to changes in cholinergic and noradrenergic
neuromodulation that occurs during REM sleep.[131] 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.[133] This is in contrast to waking
consciousness, where higher levels of norepinephrine and acetylcholine inhibit recurrent connections in
the neocortex. It is proposed that REM sleep adds 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."[131]
Affect
Some theories suggest that creativity may be particularly susceptible to affective influence. As noted in
voting behavior, the term "affect" in this context can refer 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.[134]
Positive affect relations
According to Alice Isen, positive affect has three primary effects on cognitive activity:
1. Positive affect makes additional cognitive material available for processing, increasing the number of
cognitive elements available for association;
2. Positive affect leads to defocused attention and a more complex cognitive context, increasing the
breadth of those elements that are treated as relevant to the problem;
3. Positive affect increases cognitive flexibility, increasing the probability that diverse cognitive elements
will in fact become associated. Together, these processes lead positive affect to have a positive
influence on creativity.
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.
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 will
significantly impacts creative performance. Creativity is higher when emotions and perceptions are more
positive and when intrinsic motivation is stronger.[135]
Various meta-analyses, such as Baas et al. (2008) of 66 studies about creativity and affect support the
link between creativity and positive affect.[136][137]
Computational creativity
Jürgen Schmidhuber's formal theory of creativity[138][139] 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 subjective 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 in its own right as part of the study of
artificial intelligence and robotics.
According to Schmidhuber, his objective function explains the activities of scientists, artists, and
comedians.[140][141]
For example, physicists are motivated to create experiments leading to observations
obeying 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."[142]
Schmidhuber argues that ongoing computer hardware advances will greatly scale up
rudimentary artificial scientists and artists based on simple implementations of the basic principle since
1990.[143]
He used the theory to create low-complexity art[144] and an attractive human face.[145]
Creativity and mental health

A study by psychologist J. Philippe Rushton found creativity to correlate with intelligence and
psychoticism.[146] Another study found creativity to be greater in schizotypal than in either normal or
schizophrenic individuals. While divergent thinking was associated with bilateral activation of the
prefrontal cortex, schizotypal individuals were found to have much greater activation of their right
prefrontal cortex.[147] This study hypothesizes that such individuals are better at accessing both
hemispheres, allowing them to make novel associations at a faster rate. In agreement with this
hypothesis, ambidexterity is also associated with schizotypal and schizophrenic individuals. Three recent
studies by Mark Batey and Adrian Furnham have demonstrated the relationships between
schizotypal[148][149] and hypomanic personality[150] and several different measures of creativity.
Particularly strong links have been identified between creativity and mood disorders, particularly manic-
depressive disorder (a.k.a. bipolar disorder) and depressive disorder (a.k.a. unipolar disorder). In
Touched with Fire: Manic-Depressive Illness and the Artistic Temperament, Kay Redfield Jamison
summarizes studies of mood-disorder rates in writers, poets, and artists. She also explores research that
identifies mood disorders in such famous writers and artists as Ernest Hemingway (who shot himself
after electroconvulsive treatment), Virginia Woolf (who drowned herself when she felt a depressive
episode coming on), composer Robert Schumann (who died in a mental institution), and even the famed
visual artist Michelangelo.
A study looking at 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 overall
overrepresentation, but overrepresentation for artistic occupations, among those diagnosed with
schizophrenia. There was no association for those with unipolar depression or their relatives.[151]
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.[152]
As a group, 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 reports.[152]
According to psychologist Robert Epstein, PhD, creativity can be obstructed through stress.[153]
Conversely, research has shown that creative activities such as art therapy, poetry writing, journaling,
and reminiscence can promote mental well-being.[154]
Bipolar Disorders and Creativity
Nancy Andreasen was one of the first known researchers to carry out a large scale study revolving around
creativity and whether mental illnesses have an impact on someone's ability to be creative. Originally she
had expected to find a link between creativity and schizophrenia but her research sample had no real
history of schizophrenia from the book authors she pooled. Her findings instead showed that 80% of the
creative group had previously had some form of mental illness episode in their lifetime.[155] 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 that has the disease. In 1989 there was another study
done by Kay Redfield Jamison that reaffirmed those statistics by having 38% of her sample of authors
having a history of mood disorders.[156] Anthony Storr who is a prominent psychiatrist remarked that,
“The creative process can be a way of protecting the individual against being overwhelmed by depression,
a means of regaining a sense of mastery in those who have lost it, and, to a varying extent, a way of
repairing the self-damaged by bereavement or by the loss of confidence in human relationships which
accompanies depression from whatever cause.”[155]
According to a study done by Shapiro and Weisberg, there appears to be a positive correlation between
the manic upswings of the cycles of bipolar disorder and the ability for an individual to be more
creative.[157] The data that they had collected and analyzed through multiple tests showed that it was in
fact not the depressive swing that many believe to bring forth dark creative spurts, but the act of climbing
out of the depressive episode that sparked 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 be feeling a bolstered sense of self-confidence, creative confidence, and sense of individualism.[157]
In reports from people who were diagnosed with bipolar disorder they noted 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.[158] 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. McCraw, Parker, Fletcher, & Friend, (2013) report that out of 219
participants (aged 19 to 63) that have been diagnosed bipolar disorder 82% of them reported having
elevated feelings of creativity during the hypomanic swings.[159]
Giannouli believes that the creativity a person diagnosed with bipolar disorder feels comes as a form of
“stress management”.[160] In the realm of music, one might be expressing their stress or pains through
the pieces they write 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.[161] The artistic side of society has also been notorious for behaviors that are seen as maladapted to
societal norms. Side effects that come with bipolar disorder match up with many of the behaviors that we
see in high-profile creative personalities; these include, but are not limited to, 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.[161]
Weisberg believes that the state of mania sets “free the powers of a thinker”. What he implies here is that
not only has the person become more creative they have fundamentally changed the kind of thoughts
they produce.[162] In a study done of poets, who seem to have especially high percentages of bipolar
authors, it was found that over a period of 3 years those poets would have cycles of really creative and
powerful works of poetry. The timelines over the three-year study looked at the poet's personal journals
and their clinical records and found that the timelines between their most powerful poems matched that
of their upswings in bipolar disorder.[162]
Personality
Creativity can be expressed in a number of different forms, depending on unique people and
environments. A number of different theorists have suggested models of the creative person. One model
suggests that there are four "Creativity Profiles" that can help produce growth, innovation, speed,
etc.[163]
(i) Incubate (Long-term Development)

(ii) Imagine (Breakthrough Ideas)
(iii) Improve (Incremental Adjustments)
(iv) Invest (Short-term Goals)
Research by Dr Mark Batey of the Psychometrics at Work Research Group at Manchester Business
School has suggested that the creative profile can be explained by four primary creativity traits with
narrow facets within each
(i) "Idea Generation" (Fluency, Originality, Incubation and Illumination)

(ii) "Personality" (Curiosity and Tolerance for Ambiguity)
(iii) "Motivation" (Intrinsic, Extrinsic and Achievement)
(iv) "Confidence" (Producing, Sharing and Implementing)
This model was developed in a sample of 1000 working adults using the statistical techniques of
Exploratory Factor Analysis followed by Confirmatory Factor Analysis by Structural Equation
Modelling.[164]
An important aspect of the creativity profiling approach is to account for the tension between predicting
the creative profile of an individual, as characterised by the psychometric approach, and the evidence
that team creativity is founded on diversity and difference.[165]
One characteristic of creative people, as measured by some psychologists, is what is called divergent
production. Divergent production is the ability of a person to generate a diverse assortment, yet an
appropriate amount of responses to a given situation.[166] One way of measuring divergent production is
by administering the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking.[167] The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking
assesses the diversity, quantity, and appropriateness of participants responses to a variety of open-ended
questions.
Other researchers of creativity see the difference in creative people as a cognitive process of dedication to
problem solving and developing expertise in the field of their creative expression. Hard working people
study the work of people before them and within their current area, 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.[168] Other researchers emphasize how creative people are better
are balancing between divergent and convergent production, which depends on an individual's innate
preference or ability to explore and exploit ideas.[57]
The aspect of motivation within a person's personality may predict creativity levels in the person.
Motivation stems from two different sources, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. 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 of 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.[169]
From a personality-traits perspective, there are a number of traits that are associated with creativity in
people.[170] 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.
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.[171]
In studying exceptionally creative people in history, some common traits in lifestyle and environment are
often found. Creative people in history usually had supportive parents, but rigid and non-nurturing. 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 in a field with less previous information. Most exceptionally creative people devoted
almost all of their time and energy into their craft, and after about a decade 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.[172]
Another theory of creative people is the investment theory of creativity. This approach suggest that there
are many individual and environmental factors that must exist in precise ways for extremely high levels
of creativity opposed to average levels of creativity. 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-recognised 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 views creativity
in a unique perspective compared to others, by asserting 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.[173]
Malevolent creativity
So called malevolent creativity is associated with the "dark side" of creativity.[174] 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. 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. While it is often associated with criminal behaviour, it can also be
observed in ordinary day-to-day life as lying, cheating and betrayal.[175]
Crime
Malevolent creativity is often 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 producing products that go too far and in some cases to the point of
breaking the law. Aggression is a key predictor of malevolent creativity, and studies have also shown that
increased levels of aggression also correlates to a higher likelihood of committing crime.[176]
Predictive factors
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.[174]
Harris and Reiter-Palmon's research showed that when subjects were presented with a problem that
triggered 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 that triggered 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.
They concluded premeditation, more than implicit aggression controlled an individual's expression of
malevolent creativity.[177]
The current measure for malevolent creativity is the 13-item test Malevolent Creativity Behaviour Scale
(MCBS) [175]
Cultural differences in creativity

Creativity is viewed differently in different countries.[178] For example, cross-cultural research centred on
Hong Kong found that Westerners view creativity more in terms of the individual attributes of a creative
person, such as their aesthetic taste, while Chinese people view creativity more in terms of the social
influence of creative people e.g. what they can contribute to society.[179] Mpofu et al. surveyed 28 African
languages and found that 27 had no word which directly translated to 'creativity' (the exception being
Arabic).[180] The principle of linguistic relativity, 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; Africa has a rich
heritage of creative pursuits such as music, art, and storytelling. Nevertheless, it is true that there has
been very little research on creativity in Africa,[181] and there has also been very little research on
creativity in Latin America.[182] 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,[183] while in Germany, creativity is seen more as a process
that can be applied to help solve problems.[184]
Organizational creativity
It has been the topic of various research studies 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.
Amabile[185] argued that to enhance creativity in business, three components were needed:
Expertise (technical, procedural and intellectual knowledge),

Creative thinking skills (how flexibly and imaginatively people approach problems),
and Motivation (especially intrinsic motivation).
There are two types of motivation:
extrinsic motivation – external factors, for example threats of

being fired or money as a reward,
intrinsic motivation – comes from inside an individual,
satisfaction, enjoyment of work, etc.
Six managerial practices to encourage motivation are:
Challenge – matching people with the right assignments;

Freedom – giving people autonomy choosing means to achieve Training meeting in an eco-design
goals; stainless steel company in Brazil.
Resources – such as time, money, space, etc. There must be The leaders among other things
balance fit among resources and people; wish to cheer and encourage the
Work group features – diverse, supportive teams, where workers in order to achieve a higher
members share the excitement, willingness to help, and level of creativity.
recognize each other's talents;
Supervisory encouragement – recognitions, cheering, praising;
Organizational support – value emphasis, information sharing, collaboration.
Nonaka, who examined several successful Japanese companies, similarly saw creativity and knowledge
creation as being important to the success of organizations.[186] In particular, he emphasized the role
that tacit knowledge has to play in the creative process.
In business, originality is not enough. The idea must also be appropriate—useful and actionable.[187][188]
Creative competitive intelligence is a new solution to solve this problem. According to Reijo Siltala it
links creativity to innovation process and competitive intelligence to creative workers.
Creativity can be encouraged in people and professionals and in the workplace. It is essential for
innovation, and is a factor affecting economic growth and businesses. In 2013, the sociologist Silvia Leal
Martín, using the Innova 3DX method, suggested measuring the various parameters that encourage
creativity and innovation: corporate culture, work environment, leadership and management, creativity,
self-esteem and optimism, locus of control and learning orientation, motivation, and fear.[189]
Similarly, social psychologists, organizational scientists, and management scientists (who conduct
extensive research on the 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.[190][191][192][193]
The investigation by Sai Loo, an academic and author of research monographs, [194] on creative working
in the knowledge economy brings together studies of creativity as descibed in this web page. It offers
connections with the sections on the ‘”Four C” model’, ‘Theories of creative processes’, ‘Creativity as a
subset of intelligence’, ‘Creativity and personality’, and ‘In organisations’. It is the last section that the
investigation addresses.
Research studies of the knowledge economy may be classified into three levels: macro, meso and micro.
Macro studies refer to investigations at a societal or transnational dimension. Meso studies focus on
organisations. Micro investigations centre on the minutiae workings of workers. There is also an
interdisciplinary dimension such as research from businesses,[195][196] economics,[197][198][199]
education,[200][201] human resource management,[202] knowledge and organizational
management, [203][204][205] sociology, psychology, and knowledge economy-related sectors – especially
information technology (IT) software[206][207] and advertising.[208][209]
Loo studies how individual workers in the knowledge economy use their creativity and know-how in the
advertising and IT software sectors. It examines this phenomenon across three developed countries of
England, Japan, and Singapore to observe global perspectives. Specifically, the study uses qualitative
data from semi-structured interviews of the related professionals in the roles of creative directing and
copywriting (in advertising), and systems software developing and software programme managing.[194]
The study[194] offers a conceptual framework of a two-dimensional matrix of individual and collaborative
working styles, and single and multi-contexts. The investigation draws on literature sources from the
four disciplines of economics,[210][211] management,[212][213][214] sociology,[215][216][217][218][219] and
psychology.[220][221] The themes arising from the analysis of knowledge work and creativity literature
serve to create a distinct theoretical framework of creative knowledge work. These workers apply their
cognitive abilities, creative personalities and skill sets in the areas of science, technology, or culture
industries to invent or discover new possibilities – e.g. a medium, product or service. These work
activities may be done individually or collectively. Education, training and ‘encultured environments’ are
necessary for the performance of these creative activities. Acts of creativity are viewed as asking new
questions over and above those questions asked by an intelligent person, seeking novelty when reviewing
a situation,[222] and creating something that is different and novel, i.e. a ‘variation’ on the idea of existing
ideas in a domain.[223] This framework is evidenced by the empirical chapters on the micro-workings of
creative workers in the two knowledge economy sectors from global perspectives.
This investigation identifies a definition of creative work, three types of work and the necessary
conditions for it to occur. These workers use a combination of creative applications including
anticipatory imagination, problem-solving, problem seeking, and generating ideas and aesthetic
sensibilities. Taking aesthetic sensibilities as an example, for a creative director in the advertising
industry, it is a visual imagery whether still or moving via a camera lens, and for a software programmer,
it is the innovative technical expertise in which the software is written. There are specific creative
applications for each of the sectors such as emotional connection in the advertising sector, and the power
of expression and sensitivity in the IT software sector. In addition to the creative applications, creative
workers require abilities and aptitudes to carry out their roles. Passion for one's job is generic. For
copywriters, this passion is identified with fun, enjoyment and happiness alongside attributes such as
honesty (regarding the product), confidence, and patience in finding the appropriate copy. Knowledge is
also required in the disciplines of the humanities (e.g. literature), the creative arts (e.g. painting and
music) and technical-related know-how (e.g. mathematics, computer sciences and physical sciences). In
the IT software, technical knowledge of computer languages (e.g. C++) is especially significant for
programmers whereas the degree of technical expertise may be less for a programme manager, as only
knowledge of the relevant language is necessary to understand the issues for communicating with the
team of developers and testers.
There are three types of work. One is intra-sectoral (e.g. ‘general sponge’ and ’in tune with the zeitgeist’
[advertising], and ‘power of expression’ and ‘sensitivity’ [IT software]). The second is inter-sectoral (e.g.
‘integration of advertising activities’ [advertising], and ‘autonomous decentralized systems’ [ADS] [IT
software]). The third relates to changes in culture/practices in the sectors (e.g. ‘three-dimensional trust’
and ‘green credentials’ [advertising], and ‘collaboration with HEIs and industry’ and ‘ADS system in the
Tokyo train operator’ [IT software]).
The necessary conditions for creative work to exist are a supportive environment such as supportive
information, communications and electronic technologies (ICET) infrastructure, training, work
environment and education.
This investigation has implications for lifelong learning of these workers informally and formally.
Teaching institutions need to offer multi-disciplinary knowledge of humanities, arts and sciences and it
has impacts on the programme structure, delivery approaches and assessments. At a macro level,
governments need to offer a rich diet of cultural activities, outdoor activities and sports fixtures that
inform potential creative workers in the areas of video gaming and advertising. This study has
implications for work organisations that support and encourage collaborative working alongside
individual working, offer opportunities to engage in continuous professional development (formally and
informally), and foster an environment, which promotes experiential functioning and supports
experimentation.
Team composition
Diversity between team members’ backgrounds and knowledge can increase team creativity by
expanding the total 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.[224] Thus, the potential
advantages of diversity must be supported by appropriate team processes and organizational cultures in
order to enhance creativity.[190][191][192][193][225][226] Recent study by An Zeng et al[227] found that
studies of fresh research teams is associated with higher creativity or originality.
Team processes
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
are able to 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.[190][192][193][225]
Organizational culture
Supportive and motivational environments that create psychological safety by encouraging risk taking
and tolerating mistakes increase team creativity as well.[190][191][192][193] 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.[228] 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.[190][191][192][193]
Constraints
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, many scholars propose a negative effect of material constraints on
innovation and claim that material constraints starve creativity.[229] The proponents of this view argue
that adequate material resources are needed to engage in creative activities like experimenting with new
solutions and idea exploration.[229] 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.[230][231][232]
In this sense, Neren posits that scarcity is an important driver of creativity.[233]
Consistently, Gibbert and Scranton demonstrated how material constraints facilitated the development
of jet engines in World War II.[234]
To reconcile these competing views, contingency models were proposed.[235][236][237] 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.[235] These contingency factors
reflect the need for higher levels of motivation and skills when working on creative tasks under
constraints.[235] Depending on these contingency factors, there is either a positive or negative
relationship between constraints and creativity.[235][236]
The sociology of creativity

Creativity research for most of the twentieth century was dominated by psychology and business studies,
with little work done in sociology as a discipline. While since the turn of the millennium, there has been
more attention paid by sociological researchers,[238][239] it has yet to establish itself as a specific research
field, with reviews of sociological research into creativity a rarity in high impact literature.[240]
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
the more long-standing field of the sociology of culture, which finds its roots in the works of Marx,
Durkheim, and Weber. This has meant a particular 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".[241]
Economic views
Economic approaches to creativity have focussed on three aspects — the impact of creativity on economic
growth, methods of modelling markets for creativity, and the maximisation of economic creativity
(innovation).
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.[242]
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 criticised for its view of creativity consumption as always having positive utility, and for the way
it analyses the value of future innovations.[243]
The creative class is seen by some to be an important driver of modern economies. In his 2002 book, The
Rise of the Creative Class, economist Richard Florida popularized the notion that regions with "3 T's of
economic development: Technology, Talent and Tolerance" also have high concentrations of creative
professionals and tend to have a higher level of economic development.
Fostering creativity
Several different researchers have proposed methods of increasing the creativity of an individual. Such
ideas range from the psychological-cognitive, such as 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.
Daniel Pink, in his 2005 book A Whole New Mind, repeating arguments posed throughout the 20th
century, argues that we are entering a new age where creativity is becoming increasingly important. In
this conceptual age, we will need to foster and encourage right-directed thinking (representing creativity
and emotion) over left-directed thinking (representing logical, analytical thought). However, this
simplification of 'right' versus 'left' brain thinking is not supported by the research data.[244]
Nickerson[245] provides a summary of the various creativity techniques that have been proposed. These
include approaches that have been developed by both academia and industry:
1. Establishing purpose and intention

2. Building basic skills
3. Encouraging acquisitions of domain-specific knowledge
4. Stimulating and rewarding curiosity and exploration
5. Building motivation, especially internal motivation
6. Encouraging confidence and a willingness to take risks
7. Focusing on mastery and self-competition
8. Promoting supportable beliefs about creativity
9. Providing opportunities for choice and discovery
10. Developing self-management (metacognitive skills)
11. Teaching techniques and strategies for facilitating creative performance
12. Providing balance
Managing the need for closure
Experiments suggest the need for closure of task participants, whether as a reflection of personality or
induced (through time pressure), negatively impacts creativity.[246] Accordingly, it has been suggested
that reading fiction, which can reduce the cognitive need for closure, may help to encourage
creativity.[247]
Education policies
Some see the conventional system of schooling as stifling of creativity and attempt (particularly in the
preschool/kindergarten and early school years) to provide a creativity-friendly, rich, imagination-
fostering environment for young children.[245][248][249] 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.[249] In addition to helping with problem solving,
creativity also helps students identify problems where others have failed to do so.[245][248][250] See the
Waldorf School as 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.[248][249][251][252] To promote creative thinking, educators need to identify what motivates
their students and 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.[245][253]
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.[245][248][249][251] In adults, mentoring individuals is another way to foster their creativity.[254]
However, the benefits of mentoring creativity apply only to creative contributions considered great in a
given field, not to everyday creative expression.[79]
Scotland
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.” [1] (https://education.gov.scot/impro
vement/practice-exemplars/Creativity%203-18%20curriculum%20review%20(impact%20report)) 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 [2] (https://education.
gov.scot/improvement/learning-resources/Creative%20Learning%20Networks) 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. [3] (https://education.gov.s
cot/improvement/learning-resources/What%20are%20creativity%20skills?) 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). [4] (https://education.gov.scot/improvement/documents/creativity/cre24
_infographics/cre24-the-big-picture.pdf) Scotland's national Creative Learning Plan [5] (http://www.cre
ativescotland.com/resources/our-publications/plans-and-strategy-documents/scotlands-creative-learni
ng-plan-2013) 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 [6] (http
s://education.gov.scot/improvement/Pages/Search.aspx?k=Creativity%20infographics) including a
national review of creativity across learning by Her Majesty's Inspectorate for Education. [7] (https://ed
ucation.gov.scot/improvement/practice-exemplars/Creativity%203-18%20curriculum%20review%20(i
mpact%20report))
Academic journals
Creativity Research Journal Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the
International Journal of Creative Computing Arts
Journal of Creative Behavior Thinking Skills and Creativity
See also
Adaptive performance Computational creativity
Brainstorming Confabulation (neural networks)
Content creation Invention (such as "artistic invention" in the

E-scape visual arts)
Genius Lateral thinking
Guided visualization Learned industriousness
Heroic theory of invention and scientific Multiple discovery
development Music therapy
History of the concept of creativity Musical improvisation
Innovation Why Man Creates (film)
Notes
1. "And eke Job saith, that in hell is no order of rule. And albeit that God hath created all things in right
order, and nothing without order, but all things be ordered and numbered, yet nevertheless they that
be damned be not in order, nor hold no order."
2. Runco, Mark A.; Albert, Robert S. (2010). "Creativity Research" (https://archive.org/details/cambridge
handboo0000unse_x7r7). In James C. Kaufman; Robert J. Sternberg (eds.). The Cambridge
Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-73025-9.
3. Mumford, M. D. (2003). "Where have we been, where are we going? Taking stock in creativity
research". Creativity Research Journal. 15 (2–3): 107–120. doi:10.1080/10400419.2003.9651403 (htt
ps://doi.org/10.1080%2F10400419.2003.9651403). S2CID 218546467 (https://api.semanticscholar.or
g/CorpusID:218546467).
4. Sternberg, Robert J. (2011). "Creativity". Cognitive Psychology (https://archive.org/details/cognitiveps
ychol00ster_511) (6 ed.). Cengage Learning. p. 479 (https://archive.org/details/cognitivepsychol00ste
r_511/page/n510). ISBN 978-1-133-38701-5.
5. Meusburger, Peter (2009). "Milieus of Creativity: The Role of Places, Environments and Spatial
Contexts". In Meusburger, P.; Funke, J.; Wunder, E. (eds.). Milieus of Creativity: An Interdisciplinary
Approach to Spatiality of Creativity. Springer. ISBN 978-1-4020-9876-5.
6. Torrance, Paul. "Verbal Tests. Forms A and B-Figural Tests, Forms A and B.". The Torrance Tests of
Creative Thinking-Norms-Technical Manual Research Edition. Princeton, New Jersey: Personnel
Press. p. 6.
7. Amabile, Teresa M.; Pratt, Michael G. (2016). "The dynamic componential model of creativity and
innovation in organizations: Making progress, making meaning". Research in Organizational
Behavior. 36: 157–183. doi:10.1016/j.riob.2016.10.001 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.riob.2016.10.00
1).
8. OECD/Eurostat (2018). Oslo Manual 2018: Guidelines for Collecting, Reporting and Using Data on
Innovation (https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/science-and-technology/oslo-manual-2018_9789264304604
-en) (4th ed.). Paris/Luxembourg: OECD/Eurostat. p. 44.
9. Averill, James R. (February 1999). "Individual Differences in Emotional Creativity: Structure and
Correlates". Journal of Personality. 67 (2): 331–371. doi:10.1111/1467-6494.00058 (https://doi.org/10.
1111%2F1467-6494.00058). ISSN 0022-3506 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0022-3506).
PMID 10202807 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10202807).
10. Ivcevic, Zorana; Brackett, Marc A.; Mayer, John D. (April 2007). "Emotional Intelligence and
Emotional Creativity". Journal of Personality. 75 (2): 199–236. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2007.00437.x
(https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1467-6494.2007.00437.x). ISSN 0022-3506 (https://www.worldcat.org/is
sn/0022-3506). PMID 17359237 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17359237).
11. Rhodes, Mel (1961). "An Analysis of Creativity". The Phi Delta Kappan. 42 (7): 305–310.
JSTOR 20342603 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/20342603).
12. Gabora, Liane (1997). "The Origin and Evolution of Culture and Creativity" (http://cogprints.org/794/1/
oecc.html). Journal of Memetics – Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission. 1.
13. Sternberg, Robert J. (2009). Jaime A. Perkins; Dan Moneypenny; Wilson Co (eds.). Cognitive
Psychology (https://archive.org/details/cognitivepsychol00ster_347). CENGAGE Learning. p. 468 (htt
ps://archive.org/details/cognitivepsychol00ster_347/page/n496). ISBN 978-0-495-50629-4.
14. Władysław Tatarkiewicz, A History of Six Ideas: an Essay in Aesthetics, p. 244.
15. Albert, R. S.; Runco, M. A. (1999). "A History of Research on Creativity". In Sternberg, R. J. (ed.).
Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge University Press.
16. Plato, The Republic, Book X – wikisource:The Republic/Book X
Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge University Press. p. 5.
18. Niu, Weihua; Sternberg, Robert J. (2006). "The Philosophical Roots of Western and Eastern
Conceptions of Creativity" (https://www.webcitation.org/641OBVx0d?url=http://www.westga.edu/~stp
p/JTPP_Aticles/26-2/THE1210.pdf) (PDF). Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology. 26
(1–2): 18–38. doi:10.1037/h0091265 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2Fh0091265). Archived from the
original (http://www.westga.edu/~stpp/JTPP_Aticles/26-2/THE1210.pdf) (PDF) on 18 December
2011. Retrieved 23 October 2010.; cf. Michel Weber, "Creativity, Efficacy and Vision: Ethics and
Psychology in an Open Universe (https://www.academia.edu/3640181/_Creativity_Efficacy_and_Visi
on_Ethics_and_Psychology_in_an_Open_Universe_2006_)," in Michel Weber and Pierfrancesco
Basile (eds.), Subjectivity, Process, and Rationality, Frankfurt/Lancaster, ontos verlag, Process
Thought XIV, 2006, pp. 263-281.
19. Dacey, John (1999). "Concepts of Creativity: A history". In Mark A. Runco; Steven R. Pritzer (eds.).
Encyclopedia of Creativity, Vol. 1. Elsevier. ISBN 978-0-12-227076-5.
Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge University Press. p. 6.
21. "Humanism - Rome Reborn: The Vatican Library & Renaissance Culture | Exhibitions - Library of
Congress" (https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/vatican/humanism.html). www.loc.gov. 1993-01-08.
Retrieved 2015-11-23.
22. "Leonardo da Vinci | Italian artist, engineer, and scientist" (http://www.britannica.com/biography/Leon
ardo-da-Vinci). Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 2015-11-23.
23. Tatarkiewicz, Władysław (1980). A History of Six Ideas: an Essay in Aesthetics. Translated from the
Polish by Christopher Kasparek, The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
24. Wallas, G. (1926). Art of Thought (https://archive.org/details/theartofthought).
25. Simonton, D. K. (1999). Origins of genius: Darwinian perspectives on creativity (https://archive.org/de
tails/originsofgeniusd00simo). Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-512879-6.
26. Whitehead, Alfred North (1978). Process, and reality : an essay in cosmology ; Gifford Lectures
delivered in the University of Edinburgh during the session 1927–28 (https://archive.org/details/proce
ssrealitygi00alfr) (Corrected ed.). New York: Free Press. ISBN 978-0-02-934580-1.
27. Meyer, Steven (2005). "Introduction: Whitehead Now". Configurations. 1 (13): 1–33.
doi:10.1353/con.2007.0010 (https://doi.org/10.1353%2Fcon.2007.0010).. Cf. Michel Weber and Will
Desmond (eds.). Handbook of Whiteheadian Process Thought (https://www.academia.edu/279955/H
andbook_of_Whiteheadian_Process_Thought) (Frankfurt / Lancaster, Ontos Verlag, Process
Thought X1 & X2, 2008) and Ronny Desmet & Michel Weber (edited by), Whitehead. The Algebra of
Metaphysics. Applied Process Metaphysics Summer Institute Memorandum (https://www.academia.e
du/279940/Whitehead._The_Algebra_of_Metaphysics), Louvain-la-Neuve, Les Éditions Chromatika,
2010.
28. Hargreaves, H. L. (1927). "The faculty of imagination: An enquiry concerning the existence of a
general faculty, or group factor, of imagination". British Journal of Psychology. Monograph
Supplement 3: 1–74.
29. Sternberg, R. J.; Lubart, T. I. (1999). "The Concept of Creativity: Prospects and Paradigms". In
Sternberg, R. J. (ed.). Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-57285-
9.
30. Kozbelt, Aaron; Beghetto, Ronald A.; Runco, Mark A. (2010). "Theories of Creativity" (https://archive.
org/details/cambridgehandboo0000unse_x7r7). In James C. Kaufman; Robert J. Sternberg (eds.).
The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-73025-9.
31. Kaufman, James C.; Beghetto, Ronald A. (2009). "Beyond Big and Little: The Four C Model of
Creativity". Review of General Psychology. 13 (1): 1–12. doi:10.1037/a0013688 (https://doi.org/10.10
37%2Fa0013688). S2CID 41410038 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:41410038).
32. Boden, Margaret (2004). The Creative Mind: Myths And Mechanisms. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-297-
82069-7.
33. Robinson, Ken (1998). All our futures: Creativity, culture, education (https://web.archive.org/web/201
41016051449/http://sirkenrobinson.com/skr/pdf/allourfutures.pdf) (PDF). National Advisory
Committee on Creative and Cultural Education. Archived from the original (http://sirkenrobinson.com/
skr/pdf/allourfutures.pdf) (PDF) on 16 October 2014. Retrieved 2 October 2010.
34. Craft, Anna (2001). " 'Little C' creativity". In Craft, A.; Jeffrey, B.; Leibling, M. (eds.). Creativity in
education. Continuum International. ISBN 978-0-8264-4863-7.
35. Csíkszentmihályi, Mihály (1996). Creativity:Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention.
Harper Collins. ISBN 978-0-06-092820-9.
36. Simonton, D. K. (1997). "Creative Productivity: A Predictive and Explanatory Model of Career
Trajectories and Landmarks". Psychological Review. 104 (1): 66–89. doi:10.1037/0033-
295X.104.1.66 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0033-295X.104.1.66). S2CID 13547975 (https://api.sema
nticscholar.org/CorpusID:13547975).
37. Smith, S. M. (2011). "Incubation". In M. A. Runco; S. R. Pritzker (eds.). Encyclopedia of Creativity
Volume I (2nd ed.). Academic Press. pp. 653–657. ISBN 978-0-12-375039-6.
38. Ward, T. (2003). "Creativity". In Nagel, L. (ed.). Encyclopaedia of Cognition. New York: Macmillan.
39. Smith, Steven M. (1995). "Fixation, Incubation, and Insight in Memory and Creative Thinking". In
Steven M. Smith; Thomas B. Ward; Ronald A. Finke (eds.). The Creative Cognition Approach. MIT
Press.
40. "Anderson, J. R. (2000). Cognitive psychology and its implications (https://archive.org/details/cognitiv
epsychol00ande). Worth Publishers. ISBN 978-0-7167-1686-0.
41. Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly (1996). Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention.
New York: Harper Perennial. ISBN 0-06-092820-4
42. Guilford, J. P. (1967). The Nature of Human Intelligence.
43. "The Relationship Between Individual Creativity Andcollective Intelligence in Modern Chinese
Society" (https://doi.org/10.22381%2Fkc7220197). Knowledge Cultures. 7 (2): 35. 2019.
doi:10.22381/kc7220197 (https://doi.org/10.22381%2Fkc7220197). ISSN 2327-5731 (https://www.wo
rldcat.org/issn/2327-5731).
44. Ward, T.B. (1995). What’s old about new ideas. In S. M. Smith, T. B. Ward & R. A. & Finke (Eds.) The
creative cognition approach, 157–178, London: MIT Press.
45. Weisberg, R. W. (1993). Creativity: Beyond the myth of genius. Freeman. ISBN 978-0-7167-2119-2.
46. Helie S.; Sun R. (2010). "Incubation, insight, and creative problem solving: A unified theory and a
connectionist model". Psychological Review. 117 (3): 994–1024. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.405.2245 (https://
citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.405.2245). doi:10.1037/a0019532 (https://doi.or
g/10.1037%2Fa0019532). PMID 20658861 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20658861).
47. Koestler, A. (1964). The Act of Creation. London: Pan Books. ISBN 978-0-330-73116-4.
48. Gabora, L. & Saab, A. (2011). Creative interference and states of potentiality in analogy problem
solving. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. July 20–23, 2011,
Boston MA.
49. Roese, N. J. & Olson, J. M. (1995). What Might Have Been: The Social Psychology of Counterfactual
Thinking. Mahwah, New Jersey: Erlbaum
50. Markman, K. Klein, W. & Suhr, E. (eds) (2009). Handbook of mental simulation and the human
imagination. Hove, Psychology Press
51. Byrne, R. M. J. (2005). The Rational Imagination: How People Create Counterfactual Alternatives to
Reality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
52. Dervin, Daniel (1990). Creativity and Culture: A Psychoanalytic Study of the Creative Process in the
Arts, Sciences, and Culture (https://books.google.com/books?id=wIV9AAAAMAAJ&q=%22dialectical
+theory+of+creativity%22). Fairleigh Dickinson University Press. ISBN 978-0-8386-3366-3.
53. Runco, M. & Pritzker, S.: Encyclopedia of Creativity, Academic Press, 2020
54. Holm-Hadulla, R.M. & Wendt, A.N. (2020). Dialectical Thinking. In: Encyclopedia of Creativity, 3rd
edition, Runco, M. & Pritzker, S. (eds.), Academic Press
55. Widiger, T. A., Crego, C. (2019): The five factor model of personality structure. World Psychiatry,
18:3, p. 271-272
56. Holm-Hadulla R. M., Hofmann F.H. (2012): Counseling, Psychotherapy and Creativity
57. Lin, Hause; Vartanian, Oshin (2018). "A Neuroeconomic Framework for Creative Cognition" (http://jou
rnals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1745691618794945). Perspectives on Psychological Science. 13 (6):
655–677. doi:10.1177/1745691618794945 (https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1745691618794945).
ISSN 1745-6916 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/1745-6916). PMID 30304640 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nl
m.nih.gov/30304640). S2CID 206778956 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:206778956).
58. Beaty, Roger E.; Benedek, Mathias; Silvia, Paul J.; Schacter, Daniel L. (2016). "Creative Cognition
and Brain Network Dynamics" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4724474). Trends in
Cognitive Sciences. 20 (2): 87–95. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2015.10.004 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.tics.2
015.10.004). ISSN 1364-6613 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/1364-6613). PMC 4724474 (https://ww
w.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4724474). PMID 26553223 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26
553223).
59. Aston-Jones, Gary; Cohen, Jonathan D. (2005). "An integrative theory of locus coeruleus-
norepinephrine function: Adaptive gain and optimal performance" (https://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.
neuro.28.061604.135709). Annual Review of Neuroscience. 28 (1): 403–450.
doi:10.1146/annurev.neuro.28.061604.135709 (https://doi.org/10.1146%2Fannurev.neuro.28.061604.
135709). ISSN 0147-006X (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0147-006X). PMID 16022602 (https://pubm
ed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16022602).
60. Snyder, Allan (2004). "The creativity quotient: An objective scoring of ideational fluency". Creativity
Research Journal. 16 (4): 415–419. doi:10.1080/10400410409534552 (https://doi.org/10.1080%2F10
400410409534552). S2CID 218544871 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:218544871).
61. Sternberg, Robert J.; Grigorenko, Elena L. (8 June 2010). "Guilford's Structure of Intellect Model and
Model of Creativity: Contributions and Limitations". Creativity Research Journal. 13 (3–4): 309–316.
doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1334_08 (https://doi.org/10.1207%2Fs15326934crj1334_08). ISSN 1040-
0419 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/1040-0419). S2CID 145796128 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/
CorpusID:145796128).
62. Guilford, J. P. (1957). "Creative abilities in the arts". Psychological Review. 64 (2): 110–118.
doi:10.1037/h0048280 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2Fh0048280). ISSN 1939-1471 (https://www.worldca
t.org/issn/1939-1471). PMID 13420286 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/13420286).
63. (Torrance, 1974)
64. Kim, Kyung Hee (2006). "Can We Trust Creativity Tests?" (http://people.uncw.edu/caropresoe/Gifted
Foundations/SocialEmotional/Creativity-articles/Kim_Can-we-trust-creativity-tests.pdf) (PDF).
Creativity Research Journal. 18 (1): 3–14. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1801_2 (https://doi.org/10.120
7%2Fs15326934crj1801_2). S2CID 17636888 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:17636888).
65. Kim, K. H. (2006). "Can We Trust Creativity Tests? A Review of the Torrance Tests of Creative
Thinking (TTCT)". Creativity Research Journal. 18: 3–14. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1801_2 (https://d
oi.org/10.1207%2Fs15326934crj1801_2). S2CID 17636888 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusI
D:17636888).
66. Zeng, L.; Proctor, R. W.; Salvendy, G. (2011). "Can Traditional Divergent Thinking Tests Be Trusted in
Measuring and Predicting Real-World Creativity?". Creativity Research Journal. 23: 24–37.
doi:10.1080/10400419.2011.545713 (https://doi.org/10.1080%2F10400419.2011.545713).
S2CID 11322958 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:11322958).
67. Forster, E. A., & Dunbar, K. N. (2009). Creativity evaluation through latent semantic analysis. In
Proceedings of the 31st Annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 602–607).
68. Harbison, I. J., & Haarmann, H. (2014). Automated scoring of originality using semantic
representations. In Proceedings of the 36th Annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (poster
paper).
69. Acar, S.; Runco, M. A. (2014). "Assessing associative distance among ideas elicited by tests of
Divergent Thinking". Creativity Research Journal. 26 (2): 229–238.
70. NSF SBIR Grant Number 1315053.
71. Other members include Kenes Beketayev PhD Computer Science; Liberty Lidz, PhD Linguistics;
Perman Gochyyev, PhD Statistics
72. Beketayev, K.; Runco, M. A. (2016). "Scoring Divergent Thinking Tests by Computer With a
Semantics-Based Algorithm" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4894287). Europe's
Journal of Psychology. 12 (2): 210–220. doi:10.5964/ejop.v12i2.1127 (https://doi.org/10.5964%2Fejo
p.v12i2.1127). PMC 4894287 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4894287).
73. Feist, G. J. (1998). "A meta-analysis of the impact of personality on scientific and artistic creativity".
Personality and Social Psychology Review. 2 (4): 290–309. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0204_5 (http
s://doi.org/10.1207%2Fs15327957pspr0204_5). PMID 15647135 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1
74. Batey, M.; Furnham, A. (2006). "Creativity, intelligence and personality: A critical review of the
scattered literature". Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs. 132 (4): 355–429.
doi:10.3200/mono.132.4.355-430 (https://doi.org/10.3200%2Fmono.132.4.355-430). PMID 18341234
(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18341234). S2CID 7435403 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/Corpu
sID:7435403).
75. Batey, M.; Furnham, A. F.; Safiullina, X. (2010). "Intelligence, General Knowledge and Personality as
Predictors of Creativity". Learning and Individual Differences. 20 (5): 532–535.
doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2010.04.008 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.lindif.2010.04.008).
76. (Carson, 2005)
77. Ying-Yao, Wang, Chia-Chi|Ho, Hsiao-Chi|Cheng, Chih-Ling|Cheng (2014). "Application of the Rasch
Model to the Measurement of Creativity: The Creative Achievement Questionnaire" (https://eric.ed.go
v/?id=EJ1088863). Creativity Research Journal. 26 (1). ISSN 1040-0419 (https://www.worldcat.org/is
sn/1040-0419).
78. Bendetowicz, David; Urbanski, Marika; Aichelburg, Clarisse; Levy, Richard; Volle, Emmanuelle
(January 2017). "Brain morphometry predicts individual creative potential and the ability to combine
remote ideas" (https://hal.sorbonne-universite.fr/hal-01449698/file/Bendetowicz_Brain_morphometry.
pdf) (PDF). Cortex. 86: 216–229. doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2016.10.021 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.corte
x.2016.10.021). ISSN 0010-9452 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0010-9452). PMID 27919546 (http
s://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27919546). S2CID 13248682 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:
13248682).
79. Form, Sven; Schlichting, Kerrin; Kaernbach, Christian (November 2017). "Mentoring functions:
Interpersonal tensions are associated with mentees' creative achievement". Psychology of
Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. 11 (4): 440–450. doi:10.1037/aca0000103 (https://doi.org/10.103
7%2Faca0000103). ISSN 1931-390X (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/1931-390X). S2CID 148927589
(https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:148927589).
80. Getzels, J. W., & Jackson, P. W. (1962). Creativity and intelligence: Explorations with gifted students.
New York: Wiley.
81. Barron, F. (1963). Creativity and psychological health. Princeton: D. Van Nostrand Company.
82. Wallach, M. A., & Kogan, N. (1965). Modes of thinking in young children: A study of the creativity-
intelligence distinction. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
83. Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.
84. Plucker, J., & Renzulli, J. S. (1999). Psychometric approaches to the study of human creativity. In R.
J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 35–60). New York: Cambridge University Press.
85. Hayes, J. R. (1989). Cognitive processes in creativity. In J. A. Glover, R. R. Ronning, & C. R.
Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 135–145). New York: Plenum.
86. Sternberg, R. J. (1996). Successful Intelligence. New York: Simon & Schuster.
87. Sternberg, R. J., & O’Hara, L. A. (1999). Creativity and intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.),
Handbook of creativity (pp. 251–272). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
88. Sternberg, R. J., Kaufman, J. C., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2008). Applied intelligence. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
89. Kaufman, J. C.; Kaufman, S. B.; Lichtenberger, E. O. (2011). "Finding creativity on intelligence tests
via divergent production". Canadian Journal of School Psychology. 26 (2): 83–106.
doi:10.1177/0829573511406511 (https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0829573511406511). S2CID 18061207
(https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:18061207).
90. Silvia, P. J.; Beaty, R. E.; Nusbaum, E. C. (2013). "Verbal fluency and creativity: General and specific
contributions of broad retrieval ability (Gr) factors to divergent thinking". Intelligence. 41 (5): 328–340.
doi:10.1016/j.intell.2013.05.004 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.intell.2013.05.004).
91. Martindale, C. (1999). Biological bases of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity
(pp. 137– 152). New York: Cambridge University Press.
92. Kaufman, J.C., Kaufman, S.B., & Plucker, J.A. (2013). Contemporary theories of intelligence. In J.
Reisberg (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Psychology (pp. 811-822). New York, NY: Oxford
University Press
93. Sternberg, R. J.; Lubart, T. I. (1991). "An investment theory of creativity and its development". Human
Development. 34: 1–32. doi:10.1159/000277029 (https://doi.org/10.1159%2F000277029).
94. Sternberg, R. J.; Lubart, T. I. (1992). "Buy low and sell high: An investment approach to creativity".
Current Directions in Psychological Science. 1 (1): 1–5. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.1992.tb00002.x (http
s://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1467-8721.1992.tb00002.x). S2CID 143591670 (https://api.semanticscholar.
org/CorpusID:143591670).
95. Amabile, T. M. (1982). "Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique". Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology. 43 (5): 997–1013. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.43.5.997 (https://do
i.org/10.1037%2F0022-3514.43.5.997). S2CID 144256250 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusI
D:144256250).
96. Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to "The Social Psychology of Creativity". Boulder:
Westview Press.
97. Baer, J.; Kaufman, J. C. (2005). "Bridging generality and specificity: The Amusement Park
Theoretical (APT) Model of creativity". Roeper Review. 27 (3): 158–163.
doi:10.1080/02783190509554310 (https://doi.org/10.1080%2F02783190509554310).
98. Renzulli, J. S. (1978). "What makes giftedness? Reexamining a definition". Phi Delta Kappan. 60:
180–261.
99. Naglieri, J. A.; Kaufman, J. C. (2001). "Understanding intelligence, giftedness, and creativity using
PASS theory". Roeper Review. 23 (3): 151–156. doi:10.1080/02783190109554087 (https://doi.org/1
0.1080%2F02783190109554087). S2CID 144199243 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:144
199243).
00. Torrance, E. P. (1962). Guiding creative talent. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
01. Barron, F. (1969). Creative person and creative process. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
02. Yamamoto, K (1964). "Creativity and sociometric choice among adolescents". Journal of Social
Psychology. 64 (2): 249–261. doi:10.1080/00224545.1964.9919564 (https://doi.org/10.1080%2F0022
4545.1964.9919564). PMID 14238998 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14238998).
03. Fuchs-Beauchamp, K. D.; Karnes, M. B.; Johnson, L. J. (1993). "Creativity and intelligence in
preschoolers". Gifted Child Quarterly. 37 (3): 113–117. doi:10.1177/001698629303700303 (https://do
i.org/10.1177%2F001698629303700303). S2CID 144005401 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/Corpus
ID:144005401).
04. Cho, S. H.; Nijenhuis, J. T.; van Vianen, N. E. M.; Kim, H.-B.; Lee, K. H. (2010). "The relationship
between diverse components of intelligence and creativity". Journal of Creative Behavior. 44 (2):
125–137. doi:10.1002/j.2162-6057.2010.tb01329.x (https://doi.org/10.1002%2Fj.2162-6057.2010.tb0
1329.x).
05. Jauk, E.; Benedek, M.; Dunst, B.; Neubauer, A. C. (2013). "The relationship between intelligence and
creativity: New support for the threshold hypothesis by means of empirical breakpoint detection" (http
s://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3682183). Intelligence. 41 (4): 212–221.
doi:10.1016/j.intell.2013.03.003 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.intell.2013.03.003). PMC 3682183 (http
s://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3682183). PMID 23825884 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.g
ov/23825884).
06. Wai, J.; Lubinski, D.; Benbow, C. P. (2005). "Creativity and occupational accomplishments among
intellectually precocious youths: An age 13 to age 33 longitudinal study". Journal of Educational
Psychology. 97 (3): 484–492. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.97.3.484 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0022-066
3.97.3.484). S2CID 17610985 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:17610985).
07. Kim, K. H. (2005). "Can only intelligent people be creative?". Journal of Secondary Gifted Education.
16 (2–3): 57–66. doi:10.4219/jsge-2005-473 (https://doi.org/10.4219%2Fjsge-2005-473).
08. Preckel, F.; Holling, H.; Wiese, M. (2006). "Relationship of intelligence and creativity in gifted and
non-gifted students: An investigation of threshold theory". Personality and Individual Differences. 40:
159–170. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2005.06.022 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.paid.2005.06.022).
09. Perkins, D. N. (1981) The mind’s best work. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
10. Weisberg, R. W.; Alba, J. W. (1981). "An examination of the alleged role of "fixation" in the solution of
several "insight" problems". Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 110 (2): 169–192.
doi:10.1037/0096-3445.110.2.169 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0096-3445.110.2.169).
11. McNemar, O (1964). "Lost: Our Intelligence? Why?". American Psychologist. 19 (12): 871–882.
doi:10.1037/h0042008 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2Fh0042008).
12. Kenneth M Heilman, MD, Stephen E. Nadeau, MD, and David Q. Beversdorf, MD. "Creative
Innovation: Possible Brain Mechanisms" Neurocase (2003) (http://neurology.med.ohio-state.edu/cog
nitivelab/CreativityMechanisms.pdf) Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20090319130652/http://ne
urology.med.ohio-state.edu/cognitivelab/CreativityMechanisms.pdf) 2009-03-19 at the Wayback
Machine
13. Flaherty AW (2005). "Frontotemporal and dopaminergic control of idea generation and creative drive"
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2571074). J Comp Neurol. 493 (1): 147–53.
doi:10.1002/cne.20768 (https://doi.org/10.1002%2Fcne.20768). PMC 2571074 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.
nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2571074). PMID 16254989 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16254989).
14. Mayseless, Naama; Eran, Ayelet; Shamay-Tsoory, Simone G (2015). "Generating original ideas: The
neural underpinning of originality". NeuroImage. 116: 232–9. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.05.030
(https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.neuroimage.2015.05.030). PMID 26003860 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.ni
h.gov/26003860). S2CID 12973770 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:12973770). Lay
summary (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26003860). "These results are in line with the dual
model of creativity, according to which original ideas are a product of the interaction between a
system that generates ideas and a control system that evaluates these ideas."
15. Di Bernardi Luft C, Zioga I, Thompson NM, Banissy MJ, Bhattacharya J (December 26, 2018). "Right
temporal alpha oscillations as a neural mechanism for inhibiting obvious associations" (https://www.n
cbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6310824). PNAS. 115 (52): E12144–E12152.
doi:10.1073/pnas.1811465115 (https://doi.org/10.1073%2Fpnas.1811465115). PMC 6310824 (https://
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6310824). PMID 30541890 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
30541890).
16. Vandervert 2003a, 2003b; Vandervert, Schimpf & Liu, 2007
17. Miyake & Shah, 1999
18. Schmahmann, 1997, 2004
19. Andersen, Korbo & Pakkenberg, 1992.
20. Miller & Cohen, 2001
21. Vandervert, 2003a
22. Jung-Beeman, Bowden, Haberman, Frymiare, Arambel-Liu, Greenblatt, Reber & Kounios, 2004
23. Imamizu, Kuroda, Miyauchi, Yoshioka & Kawato, 2003
24. Schmahmann, 2004,
25. Vandervert, in press-a
26. Vandervert, 2011, in press-b
27. Vandervert & Vandervert-Weathers, 2013
28. Brown, J.; et al. (2007). "On Vandervert et al. "Working memory cerebellum, and creativity" ". Creat.
Res. J. 19: 25–29. doi:10.1080/10400410709336875 (https://doi.org/10.1080%2F104004107093368
29. Abraham, A. (2007). "Can a neural system geared to bring about rapid, predictive, and efficient
function explain creativity?". Creat. Res. J. 19: 19–24. doi:10.1080/10400410709336874 (https://doi.
org/10.1080%2F10400410709336874). S2CID 43976883 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:
43976883).
30. Wagner U.; Gais S.; Haider H.; Verleger R.; Born J. (2004). "Sleep inspires insight". Nature. 427
(6972): 352–5. Bibcode:2004Natur.427..352W (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004Natur.427..35
2W). doi:10.1038/nature02223 (https://doi.org/10.1038%2Fnature02223). PMID 14737168 (https://pu
bmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14737168). S2CID 4405704 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:44057
04).
31. Cai D. J.; Mednick S. A.; Harrison E. M.; Kanady J. C.; Mednick S. C. (2009). "REM, not incubation,
improves creativity by priming associative networks" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC
2700890). Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 106 (25): 10130–10134. Bibcode:2009PNAS..10610130C (http
s://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009PNAS..10610130C). doi:10.1073/pnas.0900271106 (https://doi.or
g/10.1073%2Fpnas.0900271106). PMC 2700890 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC270
0890). PMID 19506253 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19506253).
32. Walker MP, Liston C, Hobson JA, Stickgold R (November 2002). "Cognitive flexibility across the
sleep-wake cycle: REM-sleep enhancement of anagram problem solving". Brain Res Cogn Brain
Res. 14 (3): 317–24. doi:10.1016/S0926-6410(02)00134-9 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2FS0926-6410%
2802%2900134-9). PMID 12421655 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12421655).
33. Hasselmo ME (September 1999). "Neuromodulation: acetylcholine and memory consolidation".
Trends Cogn. Sci. (Regul. Ed.). 3 (9): 351–359. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(99)01365-0 (https://doi.org/
10.1016%2FS1364-6613%2899%2901365-0). PMID 10461198 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/104
34. Winkielman, P.; Knutson, B. (2007), "Affective Influence on Judgments and Decisions: Moving
Towards Core Mechanisms", Review of General Psychology, 11 (2): 179–192, doi:10.1037/1089-
2680.11.2.179 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2F1089-2680.11.2.179), S2CID 15618397 (https://api.seman
ticscholar.org/CorpusID:15618397)
35. Amabile, T. (2017). In pursuit of everyday creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior.
36. Mark A. Davis (January 2009). "Understanding the relationship between mood and creativity: A meta-
analysis". Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 100 (1): 25–38.
doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.04.001 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.obhdp.2008.04.001).
37. Baas, Matthijs; De Dreu Carsten K. W. & Nijstad, Bernard A. (November 2008). "A meta-analysis of
25 years of mood-creativity research: Hedonic tone, activation, or regulatory focus?" (https://web.arc
hive.org/web/20110718204043/http://home.medewerker.uva.nl/m.baas/bestanden/MBaas_mood-cre
ativity.pdf) (PDF). Psychological Bulletin. 134 (6): 779–806. doi:10.1037/a0012815 (https://doi.org/10.
1037%2Fa0012815). PMID 18954157 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18954157). Archived from
the original (http://home.medewerker.uva.nl/m.baas/bestanden/MBaas_mood-creativity.pdf) (PDF) on
2011-07-18.
38. Schmidhuber, Jürgen (2006). "Developmental Robotics, Optimal Artificial Curiosity, Creativity, Music,
and the Fine Arts". Connection Science. 18 (2): 173–187. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.474.6919 (https://citeseer
x.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.474.6919). doi:10.1080/09540090600768658 (https://doi.
org/10.1080%2F09540090600768658). S2CID 2923356 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:2
923356).
39. Schmidhuber, Jürgen (2010). "Formal Theory of Creativity, Fun, and Intrinsic Motivation (1990–
2010)". IEEE Transactions on Autonomous Mental Development. 2 (3): 230–247.
doi:10.1109/tamd.2010.2056368 (https://doi.org/10.1109%2Ftamd.2010.2056368). S2CID 234198 (ht
tps://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:234198).
40. Video of Jürgen Schmidhuber's keynote at the 2011 Winter Intelligence Conference, Oxford:
Universal AI and Theory of Fun and Creativity. Youtube, 2012 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnb
ZzcruGu0)
41. Video of Jürgen Schmidhuber's talk at the 2009 Singularity Summit, NYC: Compression Progress:
The Algorithmic Principle Behind Curiosity and Creativity. Youtube, 2010 (https://www.youtube.com/w
atch?v=Ipomu0MLFaI)
42. Kurzweil AI: Transcript (http://www.kurzweilai.net/when-creative-machines-overtake-man) of Jürgen
Schmidhuber's TEDx talk (2012): When creative machines overtake man (https://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=KQ35zNlyG-o&list=PL194623EBA834DB77&index=11)
43. Schmidhuber, J. (1991), Curious model-building control systems. In Proc. ICANN, Singapore, volume
2, pp 1458–1463. IEEE.
44. Schmidhuber, J. (2012), A Formal Theory of Creativity to Model the Creation of Art. In McCormack,
Jon and M. d'Inverno (eds), Computers and Creativity, Springer 2012
45. Schmidhuber, J. (2007), Simple Algorithmic Principles of Discovery, Subjective Beauty, Selective
Attention, Curiosity & Creativity. In V. Corruble, M. Takeda, E. Suzuki, eds., Proc. 10th Intl. Conf. on
Discovery Science 2007 pp 26-38, LNAI 4755, Springer
46. (Rushton, 1990)
47. Folley, Bradley S.; Park, Sohee (2005). "Verbal creativity and schizotypal personality in relation to
prefrontal hemispheric laterality: A behavioral and near-infrared optical imaging study" (https://web.ar
chive.org/web/20060215212520/http://exploration.vanderbilt.edu/news/news_schizotypes.htm).
Schizophrenia Research. 80 (2–3): 271–282. doi:10.1016/j.schres.2005.06.016 (https://doi.org/10.10
16%2Fj.schres.2005.06.016). PMC 2817946 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC281794
6). PMID 16125369 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16125369). Archived from the original (http://ex
ploration.vanderbilt.edu/news/news_schizotypes.htm) on 2006-02-15. Retrieved 2006-02-19.
48. Batey, M. Furnham, A. (2009). The relationship between creativity, schizotypy and intelligence.
Individual Differences Research, 7, p.272-284.
49. Batey, M.; Furnham, A. (2008). "The relationship between measures of creativity and schizotypy".
Personality and Individual Differences. 45 (8): 816–821. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.08.014 (https://doi.or
g/10.1016%2Fj.paid.2008.08.014).
50. Furnham, A.; Batey, M.; Anand, K.; Manfield, J. (2008). "Personality, hypomania, intelligence and
creativity". Personality and Individual Differences. 44 (5): 1060–1069. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.10.035
(https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.paid.2007.10.035).
51. Kyaga, S.; Lichtenstein, P.; Boman, M.; Hultman, C.; Långström, N.; Landén, M. (2011). "Creativity
and mental disorder: Family study of 300 000 people with severe mental disorder" (https://doi.org/10.
1192%2Fbjp.bp.110.085316). The British Journal of Psychiatry. 199 (5): 373–379.
doi:10.1192/bjp.bp.110.085316 (https://doi.org/10.1192%2Fbjp.bp.110.085316). PMID 21653945 (htt
ps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21653945).
52. Roberts, Michelle. Creativity 'closely entwined with mental illness'.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19959565. 16 October 2012.
53. "The science of creativity" (http://www.apa.org/gradpsych/2009/01/creativity.aspx). apa.org.
54. Flood, Meredith; Phillips, Kenneth D. (2007). "Creativity in older adults: a plethors of possibilities" (htt
ps://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1137&context=utk_nurspubs). Issues in Mental
Health Nursing. 28 (4): 389–411. doi:10.1080/01612840701252956 (https://doi.org/10.1080%2F0161
2840701252956). PMID 17454290 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17454290). S2CID 12380062 (h
ttps://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:12380062). Retrieved 27 August 2019.
55. Burton, N. (2012). "Bipolar Disorder and Creativity" (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hide-a
nd-seek/201203/bipolar-disorder-and-creativity.). Psychology Today.
56. "Bipolar Disorder and Creativity" (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hide-and-seek/201203/bipola
r-disorder-and-creativity). Psychology Today. Retrieved 2020-07-17.
57. Shapiro, Pamela J.; Weisberg, Robert W. (1999). "Creativity and Bipolar Diathesis: Common
Behavioural and Cognitive Components". Cognition & Emotion. 13 (6): 741–762.
doi:10.1080/026999399379069 (https://doi.org/10.1080%2F026999399379069). ISSN 0269-9931 (ht
tps://www.worldcat.org/issn/0269-9931).
58. Miller, Natalie; Perich, Tania; Meade, Tanya (2019). "Depression, mania and self-reported creativity in
bipolar disorder". Psychiatry Research. 276: 129–133. doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2019.05.006 (https://do
i.org/10.1016%2Fj.psychres.2019.05.006). PMID 31078791 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/310787
59. McCraw, Stacey; Parker, Gordon; Fletcher, Kathryn; Friend, Paul (2013). "Self-reported creativity in
bipolar disorder: prevalence, types and associated outcomes in mania versus hypomania". Journal of
Affective Disorders. 151 (3): 831–836. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2013.07.016 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.ja
d.2013.07.016). ISSN 0165-0327 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0165-0327). PMID 24084622 (http
s://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24084622).
60. Dimkov, Petar Radoev (2018-04-01). "The Genius of Creativity and the Creativity of Genius: The
Neuro-Dynamics of Creativity in Karl Jaspers and Sigmund Freud" (https://icscpress.com/journals/jg
e/jge-0301/jge.2018.04.3.1.07/). Journal of Genius and Eminence. 3 (Fall 2018): 83–92.
doi:10.18536/jge.2018.04.3.1.07 (https://doi.org/10.18536%2Fjge.2018.04.3.1.07).
61. Kim, Bin-Na; Kwon, Seok-Man (2017). "The link between hypomania risk and creativity: The role of
heightened behavioral activation system (BAS) sensitivity". Journal of Affective Disorders. 215: 9–14.
doi:10.1016/j.jad.2017.02.033 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.jad.2017.02.033). PMID 28288308 (http
s://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28288308).
62. Weisberg, Robert W. (1994). "Genius and Madness?: A Quasi-Experimental Test of the Hypothesis
That Manic-Depression Increases Creativity". Psychological Science. 5 (6): 361–367.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1994.tb00286.x (https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1467-9280.1994.tb00286.x).
ISSN 0956-7976 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0956-7976). S2CID 146691937 (https://api.semantic
scholar.org/CorpusID:146691937).
63. (DeGraff, Lawrence 2002)
64. (Batey & Irwing, 2010) "Archived copy" (https://web.archive.org/web/20110710161255/http://www.e-
metrixx.com/creativity-profit/me2-spec/). Archived from the original (http://www.e-metrixx.com/creativi
ty-profit/me2-spec/) on 2011-07-10. Retrieved 2010-09-09.
65. Nijstad B. A.; De Dreu C. K. (2002). "Creativity and Group Innovation". Applied Psychology. 51 (3):
400–406. doi:10.1111/1464-0597.00984 (https://doi.org/10.1111%2F1464-0597.00984).
66. (Guilford, 1950)
67. (Torrance, 1974, 1984)

68. (Christiaans & Venselaar, 2007)
69. (Amabile, 1996; Prabhu et al., 2008)
70. (Feist, 1998, 1999; Prabhu et al., 2008; Zhang & Sternberg, 2009)
71. (Campbell, 1960)
72. (Gardner, 1993a, Policastro & Gardner, 1999)
73. (Sternberg & Lubart, 1991, 1995, 1996)
74. McLaren, R. B. (1993). "The dark side of creativity". Creat. Res. J. 6 (1–2): 137–144.
75. Hao, N; Tang, M; Yang, J; Wang, Q; Runco, MA (2016). "A New Tool to Measure Malevolent
Creativity: The Malevolent Creativity Behavior Scale" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC
4870273). Frontiers in Psychology. 7: 682. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00682 (https://doi.org/10.3389%2
Ffpsyg.2016.00682). PMC 4870273 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4870273).
76. Aggression: A social psychological analysis.
Berkowitz, Leonard
New York, NY, US: McGraw-Hill
Aggression: A social psychological analysis. (1962). xv 361 pp
77. Harris, D. J.; Reiter-Palmon, R. (2015). "Fast and furious: The influence of implicit aggression,
premeditation, and provoking situations on malevolent creativity". Psychology of Aesthetics,
Creativity, and the Arts. 9 (1): 54–64. doi:10.1037/a0038499 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2Fa0038499).
78. Sternberg RJ 'Introduction' in Kaufman JC and Sternberg RJ (2006) (eds) The International
Handbook of Creativity pp 1-9. Cambridge University Press ISBN 0-521-54731-8
79. Niu W (2006) 'Development of Creativity Research in Chinese Societies' in Kaufman JC and
Sternberg RJ (eds) The International Handbook of Creativity pp 386-387. Cambridge University
Press ISBN 0-521-54731-8
80. Mpofu E et al (2006) 'African Perspectives on Creativity' in Kaufman JC and Sternberg RJ (eds) The
International Handbook of Creativity p 465. Cambridge University Press ISBN 0-521-54731-8
81. Mpofu E et al (2006) 'African Perspectives on Creativity' in Kaufman JC and Sternberg RJ (eds) The
International Handbook of Creativity p 458. Cambridge University Press ISBN 0-521-54731-8
82. Preiss DD and Strasser K (2006) 'Creativity in Latin America' in Kaufman JC and Sternberg RJ (eds)
The International Handbook of Creativity p 46. Cambridge University Press ISBN 0-521-54731-8
83. Smith GJW and Carlsson I (2006) 'Creativity under the Northern Lights' in Kaufman JC and
Sternberg RJ (eds) The International Handbook of Creativity p 202. Cambridge University Press
ISBN 0-521-54731-8
84. Preiser S (2006) 'Creativity Research in German-Speaking Countries' in Kaufman JC and Sternberg
RJ (eds) The International Handbook of Creativity p 175. Cambridge University Press ISBN 0-521-
54731-8
85. (Amabile, 1998; Sullivan and Harper, 2009)
86. (Nonaka, 1991)
87. Amabile, T. M. (1998). "How to kill creativity". Harvard Business Review
88. Siltala, R. 2010. Innovativity and cooperative learning in business life and teaching. University of
Turku
89. Leal, S. y Urrea J. "Ingenio y Pasión" (2013), Lid Publishers (Spanish) and Forbes India Magazine
http://forbesindia.com/article/ie/new-trends-in-innovation-management/33905/1#ixzz2iiuuDxVq
90. Woodman, R. W.; Sawyer, J. E.; Griffin, R. W. (1993). "Toward a theory of organizational creativity".
Academy of Management Review. 18 (2): 293–321. doi:10.5465/amr.1993.3997517 (https://doi.org/1
0.5465%2Famr.1993.3997517). S2CID 15250032 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:152500
32).
91. Paulus, P. B.; Dzindolet, M. (2008). "Social influence, creativity and innovation". Social Influence. 3
(4): 228–247. doi:10.1080/15534510802341082 (https://doi.org/10.1080%2F15534510802341082).
92. Salazar, M. R.; Lant, T. K.; Fiore, S. M.; Salas, E. (2012). "Facilitating innovation in diverse science
teams through integrative capacity". Small Group Research. 43 (5): 527–5.
doi:10.1177/1046496412453622 (https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1046496412453622). S2CID 643746 (ht
tps://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:643746).
93. Harvey, S (2014). "Creative synthesis: Exploring the process of extraordinary group creativity".
Academy of Management Review. 39 (3): 324–343. doi:10.5465/amr.2012.0224 (https://doi.org/10.54
65%2Famr.2012.0224).
94. Loo, S. (2017) Creative Working in the Knowledge Economy. Abingdon, Oxfordshire: Routledge Ltd.
ISBN 9781138211391; ISBN 9781315453095. https://www.routledge.com/Creative-Working-in-the-
Knowledge-Economy/Loo/p/book/9781138211391
95. Burton-Jones, Alan (1999-10-21). Knowledge Capitalism (https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780
198296225.001.0001). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198296225.001.0001 (h
ttps://doi.org/10.1093%2Facprof%3Aoso%2F9780198296225.001.0001). ISBN 978-0-19-829622-5.
96. Drucker, David; Drucker, Erika (1999). " "There's no place like home" (a Victorian song title)" (https://d
x.doi.org/10.3406/globe.1999.1410). Le Globe. Revue genevoise de géographie. 139 (1): 77–92.
doi:10.3406/globe.1999.1410 (https://doi.org/10.3406%2Fglobe.1999.1410). ISSN 0398-3412 (http
s://www.worldcat.org/issn/0398-3412).
97. CORTADA, J (1998), "Introducing the Knowledge Worker" (https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-7506-7
058-6.50004-1), Rise of the Knowledge Worker, Elsevier, pp. xiii–xix, doi:10.1016/b978-0-7506-7058-
6.50004-1 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fb978-0-7506-7058-6.50004-1), ISBN 978-0-7506-7058-6,
retrieved 2021-06-26
98. Stenzl, Jürg (2001). Reich, Willi (https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.23092).
Oxford Music Online. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.23092 (http
s://doi.org/10.1093%2Fgmo%2F9781561592630.article.23092).
99. Florida, Richard (2003-10-27), "Entrepreneurship, Creativity, and Regional Economic Growth" (http
s://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511610134.003), The Emergence of Entrepreneurship Policy,
Cambridge University Press, pp. 39–58, doi:10.1017/cbo9780511610134.003 (https://doi.org/10.101
7%2Fcbo9780511610134.003), ISBN 978-0-521-82677-8, retrieved 2021-06-26
00. Farrell, Lesley; Fenwick, Tara, eds. (2007-03-12). World Yearbook of Education 2007 (https://dx.doi.o
rg/10.4324/9780203962664). Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203962664 (https://doi.org/10.4324%2F97
80203962664). ISBN 978-1-134-11806-9.
01. Brown, Phillip; Lauder, Hugh; Ashton, David (2010-12-03). The Global Auction (https://dx.doi.org/10.1
093/acprof:oso/9780199731688.001.0001). Oxford University Press.
doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199731688.001.0001 (https://doi.org/10.1093%2Facprof%3Aoso%2F97
80199731688.001.0001). ISBN 978-0-19-973168-8.
02. Davenport, T. H. (2005). The coming commoditization of processes. Harvard business review, 83(6),
100-108.
03. Alvesson, Mats (2004). Knowledge work and knowledge-intensive firms. OUP Oxford.
04. ARTHUR, MICHAEL B.; DeFILLIPPI, ROBERT J.; LINDSAY, VALERIE J. (October 2008). "On Being
a Knowledge Worker" (https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2008.07.005). Organizational Dynamics.
37 (4): 365–377. doi:10.1016/j.orgdyn.2008.07.005 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.orgdyn.2008.07.00
5). ISSN 0090-2616 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0090-2616).
05. editor., Orr, Kevin Martin, editor. Nutley, Sandra M., editor. Russell, Shona, editor. Bain, Rod, editor.
Hacking, Bonnie, editor. Moran, Clare (22 March 2016). Knowledge and practice in business and
organisations (http://worldcat.org/oclc/945552692). ISBN 978-1-317-37792-4. OCLC 945552692 (htt
ps://www.worldcat.org/oclc/945552692).
06. (Seán), Ó Riain, S. (2004). The Politics of High Tech Growth : Developmental Network States in the
Global Economy (http://worldcat.org/oclc/776970799). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-511-
49960-9. OCLC 776970799 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/776970799).
07. Nerland, Monika (2007-12-28). "Knowledge Cultures and the Shaping of Work-based Learning: The
Case of Computer Engineering" (https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs12186-007-9002-x). Vocations and
Learning. 1 (1): 49–69. doi:10.1007/s12186-007-9002-x (https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs12186-007-900
2-x). ISSN 1874-785X (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/1874-785X). S2CID 61112900 (https://api.sema
nticscholar.org/CorpusID:61112900).
08. Grabher, Gernot (November 2004). "Temporary Architectures of Learning: Knowledge Governance in
Project Ecologies" (https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0170840604047996). Organization Studies. 25 (9):
1491–1514. doi:10.1177/0170840604047996 (https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0170840604047996).
09. Lury, Celia (2004-08-12). Brands (https://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203495025).
doi:10.4324/9780203495025 (https://doi.org/10.4324%2F9780203495025). ISBN 9781134529179.
10. Reich, Utz-Peter (2001), "Value Theory in the National Accounts" (https://dx.doi.org/10.1057/9780230
512900_7), National Accounts and Economic value, London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, pp. 142–154,
doi:10.1057/9780230512900_7 (https://doi.org/10.1057%2F9780230512900_7), ISBN 978-1-349-
40765-1, retrieved 2021-06-30
11. Quah, Danny (2002). 24/7 Competitive Innovation. LSE Economics Department.
12. Drucker, Peter (1994). The Theory of the Business.
13. 1935-, Nonaka, Ikujirō (1995). The knowledge-creating company : how Japanese companies create
the dynamics of innovation (http://worldcat.org/oclc/782177702). Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-
509269-4. OCLC 782177702 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/782177702).
14. von Hippel, Eric (2005). Democratizing Innovation (https://dx.doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/2333.001.000
1). doi:10.7551/mitpress/2333.001.0001 (https://doi.org/10.7551%2Fmitpress%2F2333.001.0001).
hdl:1721.1/118153 (https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1%2F118153). ISBN 9780262285636.
15. 1951-, Zuboff, Shoshana (1988). In the age of the smart machine : the future of work and power (htt
p://worldcat.org/oclc/17480009). Basic Books. ISBN 0-465-03212-5. OCLC 17480009 (https://www.w
orldcat.org/oclc/17480009).
16. Lash, Scott; Urry, John (2002). Economies of Signs and Space (https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/97814462
80539). SAGE Publications Ltd. doi:10.4135/9781446280539 (https://doi.org/10.4135%2F978144628
0539). ISBN 978-0-8039-8472-1.
17. Bell, Colin; Newby, Howard (2012-11-12). Sociology of Community (https://dx.doi.org/10.4324/97802
03043110). doi:10.4324/9780203043110 (https://doi.org/10.4324%2F9780203043110).
ISBN 9781136272462.
18. Castells, Manuel (2000). "Toward a Sociology of the Network Society" (https://dx.doi.org/10.2307/265
5234). Contemporary Sociology. 29 (5): 693–699. doi:10.2307/2655234 (https://doi.org/10.2307%2F
2655234). ISSN 0094-3061 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0094-3061). JSTOR 2655234 (https://ww
w.jstor.org/stable/2655234).
19. Knorr Cetina, Karin; Schatzki, Theodore R.; von Savigny, Eike, eds. (2005-06-20). The Practice Turn
in Contemporary Theory (https://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203977453). doi:10.4324/9780203977453
(https://doi.org/10.4324%2F9780203977453). ISBN 9781134586295.
20. Sternberg, Robert J.; Kaufman, James C.; Pretz, Jean E. (2004). "A Propulsion Model of Creative
Leadership" (https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-1690.2004.00304.x). Creativity and Innovation
Management. 13 (3): 145–153. doi:10.1111/j.0963-1690.2004.00304.x (https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.0
963-1690.2004.00304.x). ISSN 0963-1690 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0963-1690).
21. Gardner, Howard (1988). "Creativity: An interdisciplinary perspective" (https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/104

00418809534284). Creativity Research Journal. 1 (1): 8–26. doi:10.1080/10400418809534284 (http
s://doi.org/10.1080%2F10400418809534284). ISSN 1040-0419 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/1040-
0419).
22. LI, JIN; GARDNER, HOWARD (1993). "How Domains Constrain Creativity" (https://dx.doi.org/10.117
7/0002764293037001010). American Behavioral Scientist. 37 (1): 94–101.
23. Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly; Csikszentmihalyi, Isabella Selega, eds. (1988-08-26). Optimal Experience
(https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511621956). doi:10.1017/cbo9780511621956 (https://doi.org/10.1
017%2Fcbo9780511621956). ISBN 9780521342889.
24. Harvey, S (2013). "A different perspective: The multiple effects of deep level diversity on group
creativity". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 49 (5): 822–832.
doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2013.04.004 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.jesp.2013.04.004).
25. Paletz, S. B.; Schunn, C. D. (2010). "A social‐cognitive framework of multidisciplinary team
innovation". Topics in Cognitive Science. 2 (1): 73–95. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.611.2475 (https://citeseerx.is
t.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.611.2475). doi:10.1111/j.1756-8765.2009.01029.x (https://do
i.org/10.1111%2Fj.1756-8765.2009.01029.x). PMID 25163622 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2516
3622).
26. Polzer, J. T.; Milton, L. P.; Swarm Jr, W. B. (2002). "Capitalizing on diversity: Interpersonal
congruence in small work groups". Administrative Science Quarterly. 47 (2): 296–324.
CiteSeerX 10.1.1.198.3908 (https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.198.3908).
doi:10.2307/3094807 (https://doi.org/10.2307%2F3094807). JSTOR 3094807 (https://www.jstor.org/s
table/3094807). S2CID 152150563 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:152150563).
27. A Zeng, Y Fan, Z Di, Y Wang, S Havlin (2021). "Fresh teams are associated with original and
multidisciplinary research". Nature Human Behaviour: 1–9. doi:10.1038/s41562-021-01084-x (https://
doi.org/10.1038%2Fs41562-021-01084-x). PMID 33820976 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/338209
76).
28. Hargadon, A. B.; Bechky, B. A. (2006). "When collections of creatives become creative collectives: A
field study of problem solving at work". Organization Science. 17 (4): 484–500.
doi:10.1287/orsc.1060.0200 (https://doi.org/10.1287%2Forsc.1060.0200). S2CID 6580938 (https://ap
i.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:6580938).
29. Amabile, Teresa M.; Conti, Regina; Coon, Heather; Lazenby, Jeffrey; Herron, Michael (1996).
"Assessing the Work Environment for Creativity". Academy of Management Journal. 39 (5): 1154–
1184. doi:10.5465/256995 (https://doi.org/10.5465%2F256995). ISSN 0001-4273 (https://www.worldc
at.org/issn/0001-4273). S2CID 144812471 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:144812471).
30. Ward, T.B. (1994). "Structured Imagination: the Role of Category Structure in Exemplar Generation".
Cognitive Psychology. 27 (1): 1–40. doi:10.1006/cogp.1994.1010 (https://doi.org/10.1006%2Fcogp.1
994.1010). S2CID 54276064 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:54276064).
31. Stokes, Patricia D. (2007). "Using constraints to generate and sustain novelty". Psychology of
Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. 1 (2): 107–113. doi:10.1037/1931-3896.1.2.107 (https://doi.org/1
0.1037%2F1931-3896.1.2.107). ISSN 1931-390X (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/1931-390X).
32. Moreau, C. Page; Dahl, Darren W. (2005). "Designing the Solution: The Impact of Constraints on
Consumers' Creativity". Journal of Consumer Research. 32 (1): 13–22. doi:10.1086/429597 (https://d
oi.org/10.1086%2F429597). ISSN 0093-5301 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0093-5301).
33. Neren, Uri (2011-01-14). "The Number One Key to Innovation: Scarcity" (https://hbr.org/2011/01/the-n
umber-one-key-to-innovati). Harvard Business Review. ISSN 0017-8012 (https://www.worldcat.org/is
sn/0017-8012). Retrieved 2019-03-26.
34. Gibbert, Michael; Scranton, Philip (2009). "Constraints as sources of radical innovation? Insights
from jet propulsion development". Management & Organizational History. 4 (4): 385–399.
doi:10.1177/1744935909341781 (https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1744935909341781). ISSN 1744-9359
(https://www.worldcat.org/issn/1744-9359). S2CID 144428010 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/Corpu
sID:144428010).
35. Hoegl, Martin; Gibbert, Michael; Mazursky, David (2008). "Financial constraints in innovation
projects: When is less more?". Research Policy. 37 (8): 1382–1391.
doi:10.1016/j.respol.2008.04.018 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.respol.2008.04.018).
36. Weiss, Matthias; Hoegl, Martin; Gibbert, Michael (2011). "Making Virtue of Necessity: The Role of
Team Climate for Innovation in Resource-Constrained Innovation Projects". Journal of Product
Innovation Management. 28 (s1): 196–207. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5885.2011.00870.x (https://doi.org/10.
1111%2Fj.1540-5885.2011.00870.x).
37. Weiss, Matthias; Hoegl, Martin; Gibbert, Michael (2017). "How Does Material Resource Adequacy
Affect Innovation Project Performance? A Meta-Analysis". Journal of Product Innovation
Management. 34 (6): 842–863. doi:10.1111/jpim.12368 (https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fjpim.12368).
38. Chan, Janet (201). "Towards a sociology of creativity". In Mann, Leon; Chan, Janet (eds.). Creativity
and Innovation in Business and Beyond: Social Science Perspectives and Policy Implications.
Routledge.
39. Reckwitz, Andreas (2017). The Invention of Creativity. Polity Press. p. vi.
40. Godart, Frédéric; Seong, Sorah; Phillips, Damon J. (2020-07-30). "The Sociology of Creativity:
Elements, Structures, and Audiences". Annual Review of Sociology. 46 (1): 489–510.
doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-121919-054833 (https://doi.org/10.1146%2Fannurev-soc-121919-054833).
ISSN 0360-0572 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0360-0572).
41. Casey, Emma; O'Brien, Dave (2020). "Sociology, Sociology and the Cultural and Creative Industries"
(https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0038038520904712). Sociology. 54 (3): 443–459.
42. Rubenson, Daniel L.; Runco, Mark (1992). "The psychoeconomic approach to creativity". New Ideas
in Psychology. 10 (2): 131–147. doi:10.1016/0732-118X(92)90021-Q (https://doi.org/10.1016%2F073
2-118X%2892%2990021-Q).
43. Diamond, Arthur M. (1992). "Creativity and Interdisciplinarity: A Response to Rubenson and Runco".
New Ideas in Psychology. 10 (2): 157–160. doi:10.1016/0732-118X(92)90023-S (https://doi.org/10.10
16%2F0732-118X%2892%2990023-S).
44. "Creativity, the Brain, and Evolution" (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/lives-the-brain/201004/c
reativity-the-brain-and-evolution). Psychology Today.
45. Nickerson, R. S. (1999). "Enhancing creativity". In R. J. Sternberg (ed.). Handbook of Creativity.
Cambridge University Press.
46. Chirumbolo, Antonio; Livi, Stefano; Mannetti, Lucia; Pierro, Antonio; Kruglanski, Arie W (2004).
"Effects of need for closure on creativity in small group interactions". European Journal of
Personality. 18 (4): 265–278. doi:10.1002/per.518 (https://doi.org/10.1002%2Fper.518).
47. Djikic, Maja; Oatley, Keith; Moldoveanu, Mihnea C. (2013). "Opening the Closed Mind: The Effect of
Exposure toLiterature on the Need for Closure". Creativity Research Journal. 25 (2): 149–154.
48. Csíkszentmihályi, Mihály (1999). "Implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity". In
R. J. Sternberg (ed.). Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge University Press.
49. Robinson, K.; Azzam, A. M. (2009). "Why creativity now?". Educational Leadership. 67 (1): 22–26.
50. Paris, C., Edwards, N., Sheffield, E., Mutinsky, M., Olexa, T., Reilly, S., & Baer, J. (2006). How early
school experiences impact creativity. In J. C. Kaufman & J. Baer (Eds.), Creativity and Reason in
Cognitive Development (pp. 333–350). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
51. Byrge, C.; Hanson. S. (2009). "The creative platform: A new paradigm for teaching creativity".
Problems of Education in the 21st Century. 18: 33–50.
52. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1993). Evolution and flow. In M. Csikszentmihalyi (Ed.), The evolving self: A
psychology for the third millennium (pp. 175–206). New York: Harper Perennial.
53. National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education (1998). All our futures: Creativity,
culture, and education. UK: NACCCE
54. Torrance, E. Paul (Ellis Paul) (2002). The manifesto : a guide to developing a creative career.
Westport, Conn.: Ablex Pub. ISBN 978-0313011863. OCLC 52769638 (https://www.worldcat.org/ocl
c/52769638).
References
Amabile, Teresa M.; Barsade, Sigal G; Mueller, Jennifer S; Staw, Barry M., "Affect and creativity at
work," Administrative Science Quarterly, 2005, vol. 50, pp. 367–403.
Amabile, T. M. (1998). "How to kill creativity". Harvard Business Review. 76 (5): 76–87, 186.
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Westview Press.
Balzac, Fred (2006). "Exploring the Brain's Role in Creativity". NeuroPsychiatry Reviews. 7 (5): 1,
19–20.
BCA (2006). New Concepts in Innovation: The Keys to a Growing Australia. Business Council of
Australia.
Brian, Denis, Einstein: A Life (John Wiley and Sons, 1996) ISBN 0-471-11459-6
Byrne, R. M. J. (2005). The Rational Imagination: How People Create Counterfactual Alternatives to
Reality. MIT Press.
Carson, S. H.; Peterson, J. B.; Higgins, D. M. (2005). "Reliability, Validity, and Factor Structure of the
Creative Achievement Questionnaire". Creativity Research Journal. 17 (1): 37–50.
doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1701_4 (https://doi.org/10.1207%2Fs15326934crj1701_4).
Craft, A. (2005). Creativity in Schools: tensions and dilemmas. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-32414-4.
Dorst, K.; Cross, N. (2001). "Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem–solution" (htt
p://oro.open.ac.uk/3278/1/Creativity_-_coevolution.pdf) (PDF). Design Studies (Submitted
manuscript). 22 (5): 425–437. doi:10.1016/S0142-694X(01)00009-6 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2FS01
42-694X%2801%2900009-6).
Feldman, D. H. (1999). "The Development of Creativity". In Sternberg, R.J. (ed.). Handbook of
Creativity. Cambridge University Press.
Finke, R.; Ward, T. B.; Smith, S. M. (1992). Creative cognition: Theory, research, and applications (htt
ps://archive.org/details/creativecognitio0000fink). MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-06150-6.
Flaherty, A. W. (2005). "Frontotemporal and dopaminergic control of idea generation and creative
drive" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2571074). Journal of Comparative Neurology.
493 (1): 147–153. doi:10.1002/cne.20768 (https://doi.org/10.1002%2Fcne.20768). PMC 2571074 (htt
ps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2571074). PMID 16254989 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.
gov/16254989).
Florida, R. (2002). The Rise of the Creative Class: And How It's Transforming Work, Leisure,
Community and Everyday Life (https://archive.org/details/riseofcreativecl00flor_1). Basic Books.
ISBN 978-0-465-02476-6.
Fredrickson B. L. (2001). "The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-
build theory of positive emotions" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3122271).
American Psychologist. 56 (3): 218–26. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.218 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2
F0003-066X.56.3.218). PMC 3122271 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3122271).
Hadamard, Jacques, The Psychology of Invention in the Mathematical Field (Dover, 1954) ISBN 0-
486-20107-4
Helmholtz, H. v. L. (1896). Vorträge und Reden (https://archive.org/details/b21500605) (5th ed.).
Friederich Vieweg und Sohn.
Isen A. M.; Daubman K. A.; Nowicki G. P. (1987). "Positive affect facilitates creative problem solving".
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 52 (6): 1122–31. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.52.6.1122 (htt
ps://doi.org/10.1037%2F0022-3514.52.6.1122). PMID 3598858 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/359
Jeffery, G. (2005). The Creative College: building a successful learning culture in the arts. Trentham
Books.
Johnson, D. M. (1972). Systematic introduction to the psychology of thinking. Harper & Row.
Jullien, F. (2004). In Praise of Blandness: Proceeding from Chinese Thought and Aesthetics.
Translated by Paula M. Varsano. Zone Books, U.S. ISBN 1-890951-41-2.
Jung, C. G., The Collected Works of C. G. Jung. Volume 8. The Structure and Dynamics of the
Psyche. (Princeton, 1981) ISBN 0-691-09774-7
Kanigel, Robert, The Man Who Knew Infinity: A Life of the Genius Ramanujan (Washington Square
Press, 1992) ISBN 0-671-75061-5
Kraft, U. (2005). "Unleashing Creativity". Scientific American Mind. April: 16–23.
doi:10.1038/scientificamericanmind0405-16 (https://doi.org/10.1038%2Fscientificamericanmind0405-
16).
Kolp, P.; Lammé, A.; Regnard, Fr. (2009). Rens, J. M. (ed.). "Musique et créativité". Orphée Apprenti.
NS (1): 9–119. D/2009/11848/5
*Lehrer, Jonah (2012), Imagine: How Creativity Works.
McLaren, R. B. (1999). "Dark Side of Creativity". In Runco, M. A.; Pritzker, S. R. (eds.). Encyclopedia
of Creativity. Academic Press.
McCrae, R. R. (1987). "Creativity, Divergent Thinking, and Openness to Experience" (https://zenodo.
org/record/1231472). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 52 (6): 1258–1265.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.52.6.1258 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0022-3514.52.6.1258).
Michalko, M. (1998). Cracking Creativity: The Secrets of Creative Genius. Berkeley, Calif.: Ten
Speed Press. ISBN 978-0-89815-913-4.
National Academy of Engineering (2005). Educating the engineer of 2020: adapting engineering
education to the new century (https://archive.org/details/educatingenginee0000unse). National
Academies Press. ISBN 978-0-309-09649-2.
Nonaka, I. (1991). "The Knowledge-Creating Company". Harvard Business Review. 69 (6): 96–104.
O'Hara, L. A.; Sternberg, R. J. (1999). "Creativity and Intelligence". In Sternberg, R. J. (ed.).
Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge University Press.
Pink, D. H. (2005). A Whole New Mind: Moving from the information age into the conceptual age.
Allen & Unwin.
Poincaré, H. (1952) [1908]. "Mathematical creation". In Ghiselin, B. (ed.). The Creative Process: A
Symposium. Mentor.
Rhodes, M. (1961). "An analysis of creativity". Phi Delta Kappan. 42: 305–311.
Rushton, J. P. (1990). "Creativity, intelligence, and psychoticism". Personality and Individual
Differences. 11 (12): 1291–1298. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(90)90156-L (https://doi.org/10.1016%2F01
91-8869%2890%2990156-L).
Runco, M. A. (2004). "Creativity". Annual Review of Psychology. 55: 657–687.

doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141502 (https://doi.org/10.1146%2Fannurev.psych.55.090902.
141502). PMID 14744230 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14744230).
Sabaneev, Leonid. The Psychology of the Musico-Creative Process // Psyche. - Vol. 9 (July 1928). -
pp. 37–54.
Smith, S. M.; Blakenship, S.E. (1 April 1991). "Incubation and the persistence of fixation in problem
solving". American Journal of Psychology. 104 (1): 61–87. doi:10.2307/1422851 (https://doi.org/10.23
07%2F1422851). ISSN 0002-9556 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0002-9556). JSTOR 1422851 (http
s://www.jstor.org/stable/1422851). PMID 2058758 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2058758).
Taylor, C. W. (1988). "Various approaches to and definitions of creativity". In Sternberg, R. J. (ed.).
The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychological perspectives. Cambridge University Press.
Torrance, E. P. (1974). Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Personnel Press.
von Franz, Marie-Louise, Psyche and Matter (Shambhala, 1992) ISBN 0-87773-902-1
Andersen B.; Korbo L.; Pakkenberg B. (1992). "A quantitative study of the human cerebellum with
unbiased stereological techniques". The Journal of Comparative Neurology. 326 (4): 549–560.
doi:10.1002/cne.903260405 (https://doi.org/10.1002%2Fcne.903260405). PMID 1484123 (https://pub
med.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1484123). S2CID 11492983 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:114929
83).
Imamizu H.; Kuroda T.; Miyauchi S.; Yoshioka T.; Kawato M. (2003). "Modular organization of internal
models of tools in the cerebellum" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC154367).
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 100 (9): 5461–5466.
doi:10.1073/pnas.0835746100 (https://doi.org/10.1073%2Fpnas.0835746100). PMC 154367 (https://
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC154367). PMID 12704240 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1
2704240).
Jung-Beeman, M.; Bowden, E.; Haberman, J.; Frymiare, J.; Arambel-Liu, S.; Greenblatt, R.; Reber,
P.; Kounios, J. (2004). "Neural activity when people solve verbal problems with insight" (https://www.n
cbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC387268). PLOS Biology. 2 (4): 500–510.
doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0020097 (https://doi.org/10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0020097). PMC 387268 (h
ttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC387268). PMID 15094802 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.
gov/15094802).
Miller E.; Cohen J. (2001). "An integrative theory of prefrontal cortex function". Annual Review of
Neuroscience. 24: 167–202. doi:10.1146/annurev.neuro.24.1.167 (https://doi.org/10.1146%2Fannure
v.neuro.24.1.167). PMID 11283309 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11283309). S2CID 7301474 (htt
ps://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:7301474).
Miyake, A., & Shah, P. (Eds.). (1999). Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active
maintenance and executive control. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Schmahmann, J. (Ed.). (1997). The cerebellum and cognition. New York: Academic Press.
Schmahmann J (2004). "Disorders of the cerebellum: Ataxia, dysmetria of thought, and the cerebellar
cognitive affective syndrome". Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences. 16 (3): 367–
378. doi:10.1176/jnp.16.3.367 (https://doi.org/10.1176%2Fjnp.16.3.367). PMID 15377747 (https://pub
med.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15377747).
Sullivan, Ceri and Graeme Harper, ed., The Creative Environment: Authors at Work (Cambridge:
English Association/Boydell and Brewer, 2009)
Vandervert, L (2003a). "How working memory and cognitive modeling functions of the cerebellum
contribute to discoveries in mathematics". New Ideas in Psychology. 21 (2): 159–175.
doi:10.1016/s0732-118x(03)00012-6 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fs0732-118x%2803%2900012-6).
Vandervert, L. (2003b). The neurophysiological basis of innovation. In L. V. Shavinina (Ed.) The
international handbook on innovation (pp. 17–30). Oxford, England: Elsevier Science.
Vandervert, L (2011). "The evolution of language: The cerebro-cerebellar blending of visual-spatial

working memory with vocalizations". The Journal of Mind and Behavior. 32: 317–334.
Vandervert, L. (in press). How the blending of cerebellar internal models can explain the evolution of
thought and language. Cerebellum.
Vandervert, L.; Schimpf, P.; Liu, H. (2007). "How working memory and the cerebellum collaborate to
produce creativity and innovation [Special Issue]". Creativity Research Journal. 19 (1): 1–19.
Vandervert, L., & Vandervert-Weathers, K. (in press). New brain-imaging studies indicate how
prototyping is related to entrepreneurial giftedness and innovation education in children. In L.
Shavinina (Ed.), The International Handbook of Innovation Education. London: Routlage.
DeGraff, J.; Lawrence, K. (2002). Creativity at Work (https://archive.org/details/creativityatwork00jeff_
0). Jossey-Bass. ISBN 978-0-7879-5725-4.
Gielen, P. (2013). Creativity and other Fundamentalisms. Mondriaan: Amsterdam.
Further reading
Chung-yuan, Chang (1970). Creativity and Taoism, A Study of Chinese Philosophy, Art, and Poetry.
New York: Harper Torchbooks. ISBN 978-0-06-131968-6.
Cropley, David H.; Cropley, Arthur J.; Kaufman, James C.; et al., eds. (2010). The Dark Side of
Creativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-13960-1. Lay summary (http://w
ww.cambridge.org/gb/knowledge/isbn/item2704083/?site_locale=en_GB) (24 November 2010).
Robinson, Andrew (2010). Sudden Genius?: The Gradual Path to Creative Breakthroughs (https://arc
hive.org/details/suddengeniusgrad00robi_0). Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-
956995-3. Lay summary (http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780199569953.do) (24 November
2010).
Sonenshein, Scott (2017). Stretch: Unlock the Power of Less and Achieve More Than You Ever
Imagined. Harper Business. ISBN 978-0062457226.
The Roots of Human Genius Are Deeper Than Expected (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cf
m?id=creativity-roots-human-genius-deeper-than-expected) (March 10, 2013) Scientific American
Dean Keith Simonton (1999). Origins of Genius: Darwinian Perspectives on Creativity (https://archiv
e.org/details/originsofgeniusd00simo). Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0195128796.
Isaac Asimov (2014-10-20) on Cultivating Creativity (http://www.technologyreview.com/view/531911/i
saac-asimov-mulls-how-do-people-get-new-ideas/)
John Cleese (2014-08-08) on Fostering Creativity (http://www.fastcocreate.com/1680999/4-lessons-i
n-creativity-from-john-cleese)
External links
Videos
Raphael DiLuzio (2012-06-28) on 7 Steps of Creative Thinking (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M

RD-4Tz60KE)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creativity&oldid=1035780427"
This page was last edited on 27 July 2021, at 16:33 (UTC).
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License;

additional terms may apply. By using this site,
you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a
non-profit organization.

Creativity: Creativity Is A Phenomenon Whereby Something Somehow New and Somehow Valuable Is Formed. The

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Creativity: Creativity Is A Phenomenon Whereby Something Somehow New and Somehow Valuable Is Formed. The

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Creativity: Creativity Is A Phenomenon Whereby Something Somehow New and Somehow Valuable Is Formed. The

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

8/6/2021 Creativity - Wikipedia

Scholarly interest in creativity is found in a number of disciplines, primarily psychology, business

Intelligence as a subset of creativity

Most ancient cultures, including thinkers of Ancient Greece,[14] Ancient China,

"Four C" model

Convergent and divergent thinking

Creative cognition approach

The Explicit–Implicit Interaction (EII) theory

The EII theory relies mainly on five basic principles, namely:

Everyday imaginative thought

Dialectical theory of creativity

Neuroeconomic framework for creative cognition

1. Sensitivity to problems, or the ability to recognize problems;

3. Flexibility, which encompasses

a. Spontaneous flexibility, or the ability to demonstrate flexibility;

1. Creativity is a subset of intelligence

Creativity as a subset of intelligence

A number of researchers include creativity, either explicitly or implicitly, as a key component of

Examples of theories that include creativity as a subset of intelligence

Sternberg's Theory of Successful intelligence[86][87][88] (see Triarchic theory of intelligence) includes

Intelligence as a subset of creativity

In this relationship model, intelligence is a key component in the development of creativity.

Theories of creativity that include intelligence as a subset of creativity

Creativity and intelligence as overlapping yet distinct constructs

Renzulli's Three-Ring Conception of Giftedness.[98] In this conceptualisation, giftedness occurs as a

Creativity and intelligence as coincident sets

Creativity and intelligence as disjoint sets

they are capable of divergent thinking mediated by the frontal lobe.

Working memory and the cerebellum

Positive affect relations

Creativity and mental health

Bipolar Disorders and Creativity

(i) Incubate (Long-term Development)

(i) "Idea Generation" (Fluency, Originality, Incubation and Illumination)

Cultural differences in creativity

Expertise (technical, procedural and intellectual knowledge),

There are two types of motivation:

extrinsic motivation – external factors, for example threats of

Six managerial practices to encourage motivation are:

Challenge – matching people with the right assignments;

The sociology of creativity

1. Establishing purpose and intention

Managing the need for closure

Content creation Invention (such as "artistic invention" in the

67. (Torrance, 1974, 1984)

21. Gardner, Howard (1988). "Creativity: An interdisciplinary perspective" (https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/104

Runco, M. A. (2004). "Creativity". Annual Review of Psychology. 55: 657–687.

Vandervert, L (2011). "The evolution of language: The cerebro-cerebellar blending of visual-spatial

Raphael DiLuzio (2012-06-28) on 7 Steps of Creative Thinking (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creativity&oldid=1035780427"

This page was last edited on 27 July 2021, at 16:33 (UTC).

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License;

You might also like